Sitting of 27 June 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Formby Township Bill [Lords]; Little-hampton Urban District Council Bill [Lords]; Llandrindod Wells Urban District Council Bill [Lords]; Matlock Bath Improvement Bill [Lords]; Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (Acton District) Bill [Lords]; Southport, Birkdale, and West Lancashire Water Board Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways Bill [Lords] (by Order). Third Reading deferred till Monday next.
Gas Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords]; Inverness Gas and Water Provisional Order Bill; Port Glasgow Improvement Provisional Order Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
North East London Railway Bill. Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Joint Committee of the House of Lords and the House of Commons on London Underground Railways in Session 1901, and the Report of the said Joint Committee, and the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee of this House on the City and North East Suburban Electric Railway Bill in Session 1903, be referred to the Select Committee on the North East London Railway Bill.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Housing of the Working Classes Acts Amendment Bill. Second Reading deferred from To-morrow till Wednesday, 12th July.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:—

1. "That, in the case of the Workington Harbour and Dock Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed

229
with:—That the parties be permitted to, proceed with their Bill."

2 "That, in the case of the Administrative County of London and District Electric Power Company Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

Resolutions agreed to.
Workington Harbour and Dock Bill [Lords]. Report [this day] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read.
Bill to be read a second time.
Administrative County of London and District Electric Power Company Bill [Lords]. Report [this day] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read.
Bill to be read a second time.
Mansfield Corporation Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments, from the Police and Sanitary Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Preston Corporation (Ribble Navigation) Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Finance Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (Gas) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill; London United Tramways (Extension of Time) Bill, without Amendment.
Highland Railway Bill, with an Amendment.
Great Northern Railway Bill, with Amendments.
Amendment to—Barry Railway Bill [Lords].
Amendments to—Municipal Corporations (Merthyr Tydfil Scheme Confirmation) Bill [Lords]; Clacton Improvement Bill [Lords]; Dearne Valley Railway Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Education, under the Education Acts, 1870 to 1903, to enable the London County Council to put in force the Lands Clauses Acts." Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London, No. 1) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under The Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Bolsover Gas, Denbigh Water, Formby Gas, Hayling Water, and Staveley Gas." [Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under The Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Dorking Water, Maidenhead Water, Tavistock Gas, Wey Valley Water, and Ystalyfera Gas." [Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, The Electric Lighting (Scotland) Act, 1890, and The Electric Lighting (Scotland) Act, 1902, relating to Airdrie, Coatbridge, Cults and District." [Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill [Lords.]
Donovan's Divorce Bill [Lords]. That They communicate Minutes of Evidence and proceedings taken upon the Second Reading of Donovan's Divorce Bill, as desired by this House, with a request that the same may be returned.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London, No. 1) Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 252.]
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords]. Read the first time;

231
referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 253.]
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 254].
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 255.]

PETITIONS.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (SCHOOL ATTENDANCE).
  Petition from Stornoway, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND VALUES (ASSESSMENT AND RATING) BILL.
  Petition from Keighley, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ISLE OF MAN.
  Account presented, of Revenue and Expenditure for the year ended March 31st, 1905, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 212.]
  TREATY SERIES (No. 18,1905).
  Copy presented, of Treaty between Great Britain and Sweden and Norway, for the Marriage of Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret of Great Britain and Ireland with His Royal Highness Prince Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden and Norway. Signed at Stockholm, May 20th, 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3422 to 3425 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Rifle-Shooting as part of Educational System.
  SIR ELLIOTT LEES: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the opinion expressed by Field-Marshal Earl Roberts that training in rifle-shooting can be effectively given by the use of miniature ranges and that such training, if given universally, would add to the security of the nation, His Majesty's Government will consider whether such training can be provided through the medium of the Education Department.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I am very sensible of the great importance of the subject to which Lord Roberts has recently called public attention, but I do not think that to the Education Department can properly be assigned the responsibility for providing the training which is contemplated under Lord Roberts scheme.

  New Transvaal Constitution—Opportunity for Discussion.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, and what, opportunity will be given to the House to discuss the provisions of the new Transvaal Constitution.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I presume that the Colonial Office Vote will be the suitable occasion for the discussion which the hon. Member desires. I cannot at present fix a date, but adequate notice will be given before the Vote is taken.

  Churches (Scotland) Bill.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if, in view of the numerous cases of interdict and eviction which are daily taking place in connection with the United Free Church of Scotland, he will now name an early day to take the Second Reading of the Churches (Scotland) Bill.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) This Question was answered to-day by

  233
  my right hon. friend the Lord-Advocate, as my hon. friend will have noticed.

  Bovine Tuberculosis Commission Report—Tuberculosis Compensation Bill.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state when the Report of the Bovine Tuberculosis Commission will be issued; whether his attention has been called to the statement of Dr. Koch respecting the interim Report, as to the absence of evidence to prove that man can be infected by animal tuberculosis in any but the very slightest degree; and whether, in view of this pronouncement, the Government will support the Tuberculosis Compensation Bill.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) As I stated in my reply to the hon. Member for the Eastern Division of Northamptonshire on the 9th ultimo†, I understand that the Royal Commission hope to issue a further interim Report towards the end of the present year, but that it is not possible to say at present when the final Report will be issued. My attention has been drawn to the statement of Dr. Koch referred to. I sympathise with the object of the Bill mentioned in the last part of the Question, but I am afraid I cannot give any promise with regard to it.

  Telephonic Facilities in Northamptonshire.
  COLONEL STOPFORD SACKVILLE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether any extension of the telephone system is now being carried on by the Post Office within the county of Northampton; and can he say when the towns of Oundle and Thrapston may expect to be provided with telephonic facilities.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Exchanges have been opened during the present year at Daventry and Brackley, in the county of Northampton, and an exchange is in course of construction at Towcester. Estimates are in preparation for exchanges at Oundle and Thrapston, and the establishment of exchanges at
  † See (4) Debates cxlv., 1342.
  234
  these towns will depend upon the amount of support which is forthcoming. Inquiry is being made to ascertain the number of subscribers who are willing to rent ex change lines, and a decision will be arrived at as soon as possible.

  Pay of Post Office Adult Night Messengers.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the new wages scheme which came into force last April applies to adult night messengers employed on full time duty in offices where the minimum of the established postmen has been raised; and, if so, can he say from what date it will take effect.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Under the scheme to which the hon. Member refers the pay of unestablished night telegraph messengers employed full time in provincial towns has been raised to the minimum of the established postmen of the town as from April 1st last.

  Pay of Unestablished Postmen.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether unestablished postmen, in places where there are no established postmen with whom to compare them, will be granted increase of pay under his Memorandum of March 24th last.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) In cases such as those to which the hon. Member refers the pay of the unestablished fullduty postmen is being adjusted within the limits of the scale which would be proper to established postmen at the offices concerned.

  Pay of Rural Postmen at Carlisle.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General why the rural postmen at Carlisle have not been placed on the town-postmen maximum of 26s. a week, as announced in his Memorandum of March last.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The question is under consideration, and a decision will be communicated to the postmen concerned in due course.

  Increase in Vivisection Experiments.
  MR. CUMMING MACDONA: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the increase in the number of experiments of vivisectors upon animals this year over last year, the numbers being 32,562 in 1905, as against 19,084 in 1904, being a total increase of 13,478; whether, in view of this increase, he will take steps to reduce this number.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I am of course aware of the increase pointed out by the hon. Member. The particulars on pages 4 and 5 of the Annual Return show that this increase is almost wholly in the experiments included in Table IV. (B), i.e., experiments of the nature of simple inoculations or hypodermic injections, and a very large proportion of those experiments were performed on behalf of official bodies. The progressive rise in the total number of experiments in recent years has been due almost entirely to the constantly increasing importance attached by the public and public authorities to experiments upon animals as a means of obtaining the knowledge required for the diagnosis of disease or for the prevention of disease in men and animals. It is not for me to take any action in the direction suggested. My duties under the statute are confined to seeing that the proposed experiments are conducted in conformity with the provisions of the Act.

  Harbour Authorities and Inflammable Oils.
  MR. GRENFELL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Petroleum Acts only empower harbour authorities to make by-laws regulating the import trade in the highly inflammable oils such as benzine, naphtha, motor spirit, etc., to which the Acts apply; and that, although equal risks are attendant upon such oils when taken out of or in transit within the port, no regulations or precautions can be enforced for preventing vessels engaged in these operations from becoming a danger to the shipping and property in the harbour they are
  236
  using; and whether there is any prospect of a Bill being brought in to deal with this important matter at an early date.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I have had under my consideration the question of extending the power of harbour authorities to make by-laws under Section 4 of the Petroleum Act, 1871, but I fear that there would be no opportunity for legislation this session. The matter shall not, however, be lost sight of.

  Education—Money Prizes.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether a local education authority may award to the scholars attending the schools under that authority prizes in money out of the school income, or whether the giving of such prizes would imperil the Parliamentary grant.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The giving of prizes in money by the local authority would not imperil the grant. As to whether such expenditure is permissible, is a question for the district auditor, whose decision is subject to revision by the Local Government Board.

  Traffic Regulations in Phoenix Park, Dublin.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a regulation exists preventing vans or carts passing through Phœnix Park; and whether, in view of the inconvenience of this regulation to traders and others, he will arrange I to allow the roads in Phœnix Park to be utilised by traders and farmers.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The regulation exists, as stated in the hon. Member's Question, the object being to prevent the use of the park roads as thoroughfares. Exceptions are made in certain classes of cases where the rule would produce hardship. The differences in the distances by the park roads and by the county roads are, in most instances, very slight.

  Erection of Irish College of Science—Irish Materials.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will arrange that the materials to be used in the erection of the College of Science shall be Irish; whether he is aware that a greater portion of the material used in the Albert Agricultural College was imported; and whether he will see that Irish materials shall be used and Irish workmen and Irish architects be employed on public works in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) As I have stated on several previous occasions, I do not consider it feasible to restrict contractors in the choice of their workmen or materials; but I have no doubt that, where practicable, preference will be given to Ireland. As regards the Albert Agricultural College I am informed that it would be incorrect" to say that the greater portion of the building materials used were imported.

  Irish Schools—Bilingual Education Scheme.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he "will supply a Return of the districts or schools in county Kerry where the Board of National Education would be prepared to sanction the introduction of the bilingual education scheme, a programme for which has been lately issued by the Board.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Commissioners cannot undertake to furnish such a Return. Applications for sanction of the bilingual programme from managers of national schools will be acceded to in all cases which the Commissioners deem suitable.

  Fighting in Southern Nigeria.
  MR. COGHILL (Stoke-upon-Trent): To ask the Secretary ot State for the Colonies whether he has received any information as to recent severe fighting In Southern Nigeria; if he can say what was the force employed; what was the
  238
  object of the expedition; and how many casualties occurred.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I presume that the Question has reference to a communication from Reuter's agent in Liverpool which was published in the newspapers on the 19th of June. I am awaiting a report on the subject from the High Commissioner of Southern Nigeria.

  Rejection of Bread at Ballykinlar Camp—Names of Contractors.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can state the names of the contractors whose bread was rejected on three occasions at Ballykinlar camp, county Down; the prices quoted on the tender accepted; the penalties incurred by the contractor; and the penalties exacted from him.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The bread was only rejected in one case, not three. The firm concerned is the Bloomfield Bakery Company. The prices are confidential, and cannot be stated. The penalty enforced on the contractor was that the firm had to replace the bread rejected.

  South African War Stores Contracts
  SIR JOHN LENG: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, seeing that British mercantile firms of standing in South Africa did not receive orders for supplies to the military after the middle of 1900, but that they were given to foreign middlemen, the Royal Commission now to be appointed will be empowered to inquire why goods were regularly purchased by our military buyers at higher prices than they were offered at or could have been obtained from British colonial merchants.
  (Answered by Mr. A J. Balfour.) It appears to me that the terms of reference to the Royal Commission were wide enough to cover substantially the hon. Member's Question; but, of course, this is a matter to be determined by the Commissioners.

  A QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he wished to invite the attention of Mr. Speaker to a Question on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the New Forest Division of Hampshire, and to ask whether it was in order, seeing that it claimed the right of Members of this House and the House of Peers to motor through Hyde Park during prohibited hours on the grounds of the privilege of having free ingress and egress to the House of Commons, and invited a Minister of the Crown to express an opinion thereon. He submitted that Mr. Speaker was the sole exponent of the privileges of the House, that it was his high privilege to be their mouthpiece, and that it was not competent for any Member to deal with a matter of this sort. Moreover the same question was raised in the House in July last year, and the then Speaker decided that it was not a question of privilege but of police regulation.
  MR. SPEAKER: It is obvious that in any Answer that may be given by the hon. Member for Chorley, he has no right or title to settle what are or are not matters of privilege. I think the Question is simply intended to call attention to the fact that there is a claim of privilege, and that if such claim exists the new regulations ought not to have been made. But I am obliged to the hon. Member for his very careful editing of the Question, and I hope he will give me his assistance on future occasions.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    South African War Stores Inquiry—Sir Neville Lyttelton's Position.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what steps, if any, did Sir Neville Lyttelton take to inquire into the irregularities in the transactions of the sales and refunds to contractors, to which the attention of the headquarters staff at Pretoria had been called by the officer commanding the Bloemfontein District in March, 1903, and which had been in operation since the middle of 902; what report, if any, did Sir Neville
    240
    Lyttelton make to the War Office at home in reference to these irregularities and whether the communications, if any, between Sir Neville Lyttelton and the War Office with respect to the sales and refunds to contractors will be presented, to the House.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War what explanation, if any, have the War Office authorities to give for the fact that the orders of the War Office given by cablegram that reports be sent each month by cablegram to the War Office showing receipts on account of stores, supplies, remounts, etc., sold by the Army in South Africa to civilian authorities or to private buyers, were ignored, and that these returns were never furnished; and what action, if any, did the War Office authorities take in view of this neglect on the part of the office of the Director of Supplies to obey these orders from the centre of authority in military affairs at home.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR. WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FOESTER,): These points fall within the scope of the inquiry to be held by the Royal Commission, which will be empowered to call for all Papers necessary. I am not, therefore, in a position to reply to the hon. Member.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid the House was entitled to the information, required in his specific Questions.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid it I would be given to the judicial tribunal.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid the right hon. Gentleman was asked what communications had passed. These things were within his knowledge, and information should not be refused.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has asked his Questions and received his reply.

    Mr. Meyer.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War to what nationality did Meyer, described in the Butler Sales and Refunds to Contractors,

    241
    Report as a favoured contractor in relation both to his supply to us and his purchases from us, originally belong, and when was he naturalised; whether he has inquired, or intends to inquire, the grounds on which Meyer became a favoured contractor, and whether there is any, and, if so, what, connection between him and a person referred to in the Report as some shadowy personality occasionally showing in the background of these transactions; and what steps, if any, does he intend to take for the probing to the bottom of transactions of which the Butler Committee say in their Report they have only been able to touch the fringe.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I have no information to enable me to reply to the first part of the Question. The other matters alluded to in the Question will fall within the field of the inquiry to be held by the Royal Commission.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The right hon. Gentleman takes refuge in the Commission inquiry like a naughty child.

    Military Stores Scandal—Destruction of Documents.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Attorney-General has been consulted with reference to the putting of the Public Prosecutor in motion with reference to the taking of proceedings against persons to whom may be traced the destruction of documents in connection with the sales and refunds to contractors in South Africa, to which reference has been made in the Report of the Butler Committee; and what steps, if any, do the War Office authorities propose to take with a view of bringing to justice the destroyers of these documents.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The reply to the first part of the Question is in the negative. The reply to the second part of the Question cannot be given until the Royal Commission has reported.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Why cannot all these documents be laid before
    242
    the Attorney-General, as in the Whitaker Wright case?
    MR. WHITLEY: Does the inquiry prevent the documents beings laid before the Attorney-General before the Commission reports?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No; the whole of these documents and the Report of the Committee have been laid before the Public Prosecutor, but there is no evidence to justify prosecution.
    MR WHITLEY: Apart from the action of the Public Prosecutor, does the right hon. Gentleman say there has not been any destruction of documents?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, I do not say anything of the kind. I do not know; inquiry will reveal whether there has been or not.

    War Office Delays.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War why did the War Office neglect to take any steps until January, 1905. to inquire into the irregularities in the sales and refunds to contractors in South Africa on which the Auditor-General first reported in February, 1904; and whether the War Office authorities, have any, and, if so, what, explanation to make of a delay which has facilitated attempts by the destruction of documents to conceal the character of these transactions, or the persons who participated in them.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The Comptroller and Auditor-General's Report of February, 1904, dealt with points, different from the irregularities to which the hon. Member refers. The paragraphs apparently alluded to are—Paragraph 82, which deals with loss on sales to the Repatriation Department—a matter totally separate from sales and refunds to contractors. Paragraph 83—Sales by Military Sales Department—which have not been alleged to have been irregular. Paragraph 84—Sales below the minimum rate at which tenders had been invited. Sales of perishable supplies had to be made, and it is no more open to the Army than to any other

    243
    seller to fix what the buyer shall pay. The fact that low prices had been accepted by the local military authorities would not imply the existence of any scandal.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the paragraphs quoted the Auditor-General quotes from the Report of General Lyttelton on these very transactions? Does he propose to lay that Report on the Table?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERNo, Sir. I propose to submit all these Papers and other documents relating to them to the Royal Commission.

    Losses on War Stores in South Africa.
    MR. GALLOWAY: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if his attention has been called to a statement in the Press to the effect that six or seven millions of money was lost upon the sales of stores referred to by Lord Kitchener as being in his possession at the end of the war, and whether the statement is true.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT,): My attention has been drawn to the statement, which is undeniably inaccurate. If the hon. Member wishes me to state a few of the leading facts already mentioned I will repeat them. Lord Kitchener estimated that the stores in his possession at the end of the war, if all sold, might realise seven millions of money. Whether that estimate was correct or not I need not now discuss, but there is evidence to show that it was based upon anticipation of prices which were not in fact realised. I can give to the House four figures, which have been already quoted, and which show the absurdity of the suggestion that £7,000,000 have been lost. We have received from the Repatriation Committee for stores sold to them £2,680,000, all stores referred to by Lord Kitchener. We have received further £2,000,000 for horses and other animals, and, £718,000, as stated by my right hon. friend last night, in respect of those transactions which were under
    244
    discussion yesterday. We also, out of those stores, fed for six months 140,000 persons in the concentration camps. The total value of those stores so supplied to the camps cannot possibly have been less than £1,000,000. If those figures are added together, it will be found that upon the stores remaining at the end of the war we realised £6,400,000. I wish to add that I do not at all admit that the remaining £600,000 is to be regarded as loss—because, as I have already stated, the estimate of Lord Kitchener was based, as can be shown, on prices which could not be realised.
    MR. LIEF JONES: Is there any significance in the use of the word "surplus" by Lord Kitchener.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: The intention was to sell everything, and the valuation Lord Kitchener put upon his stores was in respect of all stores he then had in South Africa.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Can the House have a statement showing the actual remaining stores to which these calculations had reference, and the amounts received for each category, and the times of sale.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: I am not prepared to answer at this moment. I have been asked to state, and have stated, the actual money received. The statement that there has been a loss of £7,000,000 is absolutely without foundation.
    MR. LIEF JONES: Is it to be understood that Lord Kitchener did not contemplate reserving any stores?
    MR. RUNCIMAN: Is it a fact that a profit was made on the transactions, and will it appear in the accounts as an appropriation in aid?
    MR. CROOKS: Shall we realise a dividend on the war?
    MR. WHITLEY: Is it not the case that supplies were pouring into South Africa all this time?
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: It is true, and that has been taken into account. On the other hand, it must be remembered that during six months we took out of the stores six months perishable and nine months imperishable supplies. It is perfectly fair, though these are rough estimates, to set one against the other.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: Will the figures appear in the Appropriation Accounts?
    MR. BUCHANAN: Will these figures be laid before the Commission?
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: No doubt they will be available should the Commissioners wish to have them.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Of course they will.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Shall I be justified inputting down the Questions to the Financial Secretary which his master, the Secretary for War, has refused to answer? He certainly is the more communicative.
    MR. MACVEAGH: As this experiment has been so successful, will the Financial Secretary to the War Office ask the hon. Member for South-West Manchester to give notice of another "cut and dried" Question?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Volunteer Organisation.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the declaration of the President of the Imperial Defence Committee that, although in 1899 there were numbers of Volunteers in the country, they were not organised from the point of view of a field army, and there was not any machinery for organising them, no headquarters staff, and no sufficient arrangement for instantaneously using them as a field army; and if he can inform the House what steps, if any, the War
    246
    Office has taken during the last six years to remedy such a condition of affairs.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: In reply to the Question put yesterday † by my hon. and gallant friend on the subject of the organisation of the Volunteers as a field force I gave a full Answer explaining the measures which were now being taken. This Answer covers a reply to the present Question.
    MR. MCCRAE: Is it not a fact that for the last two years charges have been borne on the Estimates for Army Service Corps for the Volunteers which have never been put into operation?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: There has been an important departure in the direction of the organisation of Army Corps for the Volunteer force, and I hope the experiment will be extended.

    Deficiency of Volunteer Officers.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what was the deficiency of officers in the Volunteer force on May 31st, 1905; and how the strength of the force shown by the last Quarterly Return compares with the corresponding date in 1900.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The total deficiency of combatant officers amounted to 2,770, including 197 seconded. The strength of the force, for all ranks, on April 1st was 248,591. The figures for the corresponding month in 1900 cannot be given, but the figures for October 1st, 1900—the year of the war—were 282,732.

    Reserve of Army Officers.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the total establishment of the reserve of officers, and if it provides, as in the United States, for filling vacancies in the, Regular Army on mobilisation, and also for the officering of irregular corps in the event of war; and how many officers are now in the reserve and available in the event of active service.
    † See page 89.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: There is no fixed establishment of the reserve of officers. The reserve is intended to provide for the purposes stated in the Question so far as numbers will permit, but the composition and organisation of the reserve is at present under consideration. The number of officers on the strength amounts to 2,388, exclusive of 596 who are in various kinds of military, colonial, and other employment. Of the former number at least 20 per cent, must be deducted for medical unfitness as regards availability for active service. I consider the question of increasing the reserve of officers one of the most important of these which now engage the attention of the Army Council.

    Anglo-Newfoundland Development Company.
    MR. LEIF JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Government of Newfoundland paid in 1901 the sum of 850,000 dollars to recover from Mr. R. G. Reid certain lands which had been granted to him by Act of Legislature; and that the same Government is now proposing to grant to the Anglo-Newfoundland Development Company, Limited, a perpetually renewable lease of a far larger area of land comprising the whole watershed of the Exploits River; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
    The following Questions also appeared on the Paper on the same subject—
    MR. NUSSEY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that The Newfoundland Crown Lands Act, 1903, demands a payment of five dollars per square mile for the first year and of three dollars per square mile thereafter for all the lands granted under a ninety-nine years pulp limit lease, and that the perpetually renewable lease now proposed to be granted to the Anglo-Newfoundland Development Company, Limited, provides for the payment of two dollars per square mile only and expressly exempts the lessees from any payment whatever for swamp and barren lands, he proposes to take any, and, if any, what, action in the matter.
    MR. SOARES: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, under the Bill lately passed by the Newfoundland Legislature to confirm a contract made with the Anglo-Newfoundland Development Company, Limited, for the purpose of utilising the timber resources of the colony in the establishment of pulp and paper industries, the lessees are granted full mineral and quarry rights, over an area estimated at 2,100,000 acres, such rights not being necessary for the stated purposes of the contract, and being subject only to a nominal charge of 5 per cent, on the net profits of the sale of precious and other metals, minerals, and mineral substances; and that the lessees are free from the provisions of the existing law as to the verification and proof of accounts by holders of mineral licences; and whether, seeing that the terms of the lease are contrary in these and other respects to the express provisions of the Crown Lands Act of 1903 now in force in the colony, he will state what action, if any, he proposes to take in the matter.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): I can only refer the hon. Members to the Answer which I gave on the 22nd June † to other Questions on the subject of this contract.
    MR. WHITLEY: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to receive a copy of the final agreement, and will he allow Members of the House to see it?
    MR. LYTTELTON: I should like to have notice of that Question.
    MR. WHITLEY: Is it expected this week?
    MR. LYTTELTON: I cannot say.

    Mr. Van Rensburg. of the South African Inter-Colonial Council.
    MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that at the first meeting, in Heidelberg, of creditors in the insolvent estate of Mr. Van Rensburg, who recently resigned his seat as a nominated member
    † See (4) Debates, cxlvii., 1350.

    249
    of the Inter-Colonial Council, debts to the amount of £51,000 were proved, and included in the list was a sum of £20,000 due to the Colonial Treasurer of the Transvaal; and can he say for what purpose this loan was made.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I have no official information as yet on the subject referred to.
    MR. WHITLEY: Is this the man whose telegram that the Boers were not opposed to Chinese labour was read out to this House?
    MR SWIFT MACNEILL: How long has he been naturalised?
    [No Answers were returned.]

    Cost of Transvaal Governor's and Lieutenant-Governor's Establishments.
    MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to the fact that, according to the Treasury accounts of the Transvaal Government for the year ending 30th June, 1904, the expenses of the establishments of the Governor and Lieutenant-Governor amounted to a sum of £63,860, in addition to £30,000 set aside for buying a house for the Governor and £40,000 for the building of a house for the Lieutenant-Governor, and that these expenses included such items as £1,535 8s. 8d. for a dance given at the Wanderers Hall, Johannesburg; and whether, having regard to the fact that the establishment of the late President Kruger only involved an annual cost of £7,700, he will call for greater economy in the Transvaal administration until the obligation of the £30,000,000 war contribution has been discharged.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I must remind the hon. Member that His Majesty's Government has elected to treat the new colonies as self-governing colonies in all matters in which Imperial interests are not directly concerned. The items of expenditure referred to clearly fall within the scope of this principle, and the Appropriation Ordinances which provide for them have been duly passed by the local Legislature. I may add that I am unable to follow all the hon. Mem
    250
    ber's figures, and the comparison which he makes requires considerable qualification, because the expenses of the Governor's establishment (part of which is borne by Orange River Colony funds) and of the Lieutenant-Governor's, cover some items like clerical assistance and cables which appear separately in the Estimates of the South African Republic. In the case of the Governor's house the sum set aside for its purchase would" remove a charge of £1,900 per annum for rent. I feel sure that Lord Selborne may be relied upon to practise all reasonable economy in these matters, and I may say that considerable retrenchments have been made by the Administration within the last year. It must be remembered in dealing with the expenditure referred to that the cost of land, building, and living, which enormously increased during and after the war, still remains very high.
    MR. WHITLEY: My figures are from the official Return. Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the decision of the Government to treat the colony as self-governing takes away from the power of his office to consider its finances until the £30,000,000 loan has been paid?
    MR. BRYCE: Is there any precedent in our colonial administration for treating a colony which is in fact a Crown colony as a self-governing colony, and for abrogating the right and duty of restraining expenditure?
    MR. BUCHANAN: May I also ask whether, under the new Constitution to be given to the Transvaal, the new Transvaal Legislature will have the power of reducing the Governor's salary or his establishment expenses?
    MR. LYTTELTON: No; the Governor's salary is reserved under the new Constitution. I do not like to reply off-hand to the right hon. Gentleman's Question, which should be put down. The power referred to by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax was not taken away, but that power must be exercised with the greatest discretion.
    MR. WHITLEY: Then my Question stands: Will the Government exercise that power as against this extravagance until the loan has been paid?
    MR. LYTTELTON: I have answered that.
    MR. BRIGHT: Is it really the fact that the establishments of the Governor and Lieutenant-Governor of the Transvaal are now more expensive than Mr. Kruger's establishment?
    MR. LYTTELTON: No doubt; but the establishments to which I have referred, as I have explained, include numerous items which were not included in the establishment of the late President Kruger.

    Disturbances at the Angelo and New Comet Mines.
    MR. LEVY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give particulars of the disturbances which took place on May 14th and 15th amongst the employees of the Angelo and New Comet Mines; what were the causes which produced the disturbances; and whether, seeing that five Chinese, four Kaffirs, and one India coolie were killed, what steps he proposes to take to prevent a recurrence of such incidents.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I have not yet received an official account of these disturbances, but I have asked for a report.

    Crœsus Gold Mine, Langlaate—Cruelty to a Native.
    MR. LEIF JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to a c. se tried before Mr. Van den Berg, at "A" Court, Johannesburg, on May 17th, 1905, in which an overseer at the Croesus Gold Mine, Langlaate, was fined £20 for cruelty to a native, and in which the indictment alleged that, on 8th May, the accused assaulted one of his native employees, named Jim Simali, by handcuffing him to an non staple attached to a wooden plank made fast to the floor, keeping him in that position for four days
    252
    without food or drink; whether he will take steps to have the man convicted of this crime removed from his post as overseer; and whether he will devise some greater safeguards than at present exist to prevent the occurrence of similar incidents in future.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I am asking the Governor for a report on this case and for his observations as to the steps which the Government may be able to take not merely to punish such offence v but to prevent their occurrence. In the newspaper account of the trial which I have seen the accused is referred to as "a contractor" and not as "an overseer" and the magistrate found as a fact that the native had not been kept without food and drink.

    Indian Military Charges.
    MR. LAMBERT (Devonshire,): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, seeing that in 1901 the military charge for India was a little over £15,000,000, it having increased since then to over £20,500,000, the Government of India have signified their approval of this further increase of £2,440,000 per year in the military expenditure of India.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,): In 1900–01 the net charge falling on the revenues of India for Military Services was £15,019,176; in 1905–06 it is estimated at £20,711,900, including grants of £2,439,900 on reorganisation. These grants have been made in accordance with the wishes of the Government of India and include expenditure from an unspent balance brought forward from 1904–05. It is contemplated that the expenditure on reorganisation will be at the rate of £2,000,000 a year for the next few years; and this will be in accordance with a proposal initiated by the Government of India.

    China and the Tibetan Treaty.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Chinese Government have assented to the Tibetan Treaty; whether he can state what is the exact amount of the indemnity that is to be paid by the Tibetan people;

    253
    and whether there are at present any British or Indian troops in occupation of Tibetan territory.
    MR. BRODRICK: (1) The negotiations as to the adhesion of China to the Tibet Convention are still proceeding. (2) The indemnity to be paid by Tibet is twenty-five lakhs of rupees, as stated in the Declaration appended to the ratified copy of the Tibet Convention, published at page 93 of the last Tibet Blue-book. (3) I am not aware of any change in the number of troops which I informed the hon. Member on the 10th Aprill† were being maintained in Tibetan territory, viz., two and a half companies of native infantry in Chumbi, and an escort of fifty men with the trade agent at Gyangtse.
    MR. LAMBERT: When are the negotiations with China likely to come to an end?
    MR. BRODRICK: As the hon. Member knows, events do not travel very quickly in China.

    Reported Resignation of Sir E. Elles.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask if the Secretary of State for India has had his attention drawn to a statement in a Reuter telegram that Major-General Sir E. Elles is under the impression that he has tendered his resignation and that it has been accepted. The General, it is stated, has proferred his resignation in certain conditions, and these having arisen the Secretary of State has considered it desirable to accept the resignation. Does the right hon. Gentleman still adhere to his statement that Sir E. Elles has not resigned?
    MR. BRODRICK: The hon. Member is perfectly right in saying that in a despatch which I have laid before the House General Sir E. Elles said that in certain eventualities he should tender his resignation. I have not yet heard that he has done so.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Is there any foundation for the statement that the
    † See (4) Debates, cxliv., 1017.
    254
    right hon. Gentleman has accepted the resignation?
    MR. BRODRICK: I have nothing to add to my Answer. I have given all the information I have.

    Russian Seizures of British Steamers.
    MR. ROBSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the crew of the British steamship "Allanton," which was unlawfully captured on the 16th June, 1904, by a Russian warship, have as yet received no compensation from the Russian Government for the losses, risks, and hardships imposed on them by reason of the capture, and particularly for their enforced detention of nearly five months. at Vladivostock; and whether it is the intention of the Government to present any claim to the Russian Government on behalf of these men.
    MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: May I also ask whether representations have been made to the Russian Government with regard to the sinking of the "Ikhona," and whether instructions are being sent to the commander of the Russian cruiser "Terek" similar to those which have been sent to the commander of the "Dneiper?"
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): I do not think that arises out of the Question, but my impression is that our Ambassador at St. Petersburg has been instructed to bring this matter to the notice of the Russian Government in the same way as the question of the "St. Kilda." The Answer to the earlier portion of the Question of the hon. Member for South Shields is in the affirmative. With reference to the concluding portion I am informed that the crew were in receipt of wages throughout the period of the vessel's detention at Vladivostock, and up to the present sufficient facts have not been brought to the notice of His Majesty's Government to justify a claim being presented to the Russian Government on behalf of the members of the crew.

    Income-Tax on Easter Offerings to Clergymen.
    MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is by his instructions that income-tax is being claimed on Easter offerings given in some churches to the incumbent by the congregation; and whether he will cause such practice to be discontinued.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): No, Sir, I have issued no instructions on the subject. The tax is claimed in obedience to the law.
    MR. COGHILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that clergymen are being harassed to pay the income-tax?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Question is of an argumentative character, but if the hon. Gentleman will refer to the Income-Tax Act, 1842, he will see that these offerings are chargeable with tax, and it is the business of the Inland Revenue authorities to collect that tax.

    The Revenue Bill.
    MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU (Hampshire,): Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer lay on the Table a Memorandum explanatory of the Revenue Bill, as was done by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer in the case or the Bill of 1903?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think it would be for the convenience of the House that I should lay on the Table a memorandum explanatory of the Revenue Bill. The Bill in the main is composed of clauses to carry out the recommendations of the Committee which sat to inquire into the use of industrial alchol. The other clauses are entirely concerned with the concessions which the Revenue has been asked to make in the interests of justice or convenience to various classes.
    MR. LOUGH: Will the clause about chicory be explained?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.
    MR. FLAVIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is industrial alcohol?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member will read the Bill he will ascertain exactly.

    "Hansard."
    MR. ARTHUR MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the indices attached to each volume of Hansard, he will consider the desirability of omitting the Summary of Parliamentary Proceedings, together with a list of Ministers and Parliamentary officials, and a chronology of Parliamentary Debates.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,): I am engaged in making inquiries as to the practicability of adopting the suggestions of my hon. friend.
    MR. WHITLEY: Will the hon. Gentleman consult other Members before coming to a decision?
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I shall be glad to consult all sections of the House.

    Police and Motor-Car Speeds.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that an automobilist, when travelling between twelve and fourteen miles an hour, was stopped recently by the police, who swore he was going forty-three miles an hour; and whether he will ascertain how such a discrepancy arose.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent,): The question refers to a case quoted by the hon. Member for the Ormskirk Division of Lancashire in the debate which took place on the 1st of this month† on the Local Government Board Estimates. The report of that debate does not show where the incident took place or what
    † See (4) Debates, cxlvii, 474.

    257
    was the police force concerned. The hon. Member for the Ormskirk Division has, however, kindly furnished me with this information, and I am now making the inquiry suggested.
    MR. SOARES: And at the same time will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the case in which Mr. Lane imposed a fine of only 20s. on a man who drove a 50 h.p. motor at the rate of twenty-eight miles an hour through Kensington.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: If the hon. Member will give me particulars I will do my best.

    Exclusion of Motor-Cars from Hyde Park.
    SIR CHARLES CAYZER: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, under what regulations the Office of Works has given orders to exclude motor-cars from Hyde Park in the afternoon; and whether the regulation will be laid upon the Table of the House for the information of Members.
    LORD BALCARRES: The Regulation under which motor traffic is excluded from Hyde Park between the hours of 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. has been made under the provisions of Rule No. 1 for Hyde Park in connection with the Regulations prescribed by the Parks Regulation Act, 1872 (35 and 36 Vict., cap. 15). There is no legal obligation to lay the notice on the Table of the House; it is exhibited at the entrances to Hyde Park in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
    MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he can state under what regulations motor-carriages of all kinds are to be excluded from Hyde Park between three and seven; whether a longer notice can be given to enable persons using motor-cars to understand exactly by what roads they can travel; whether an exemption can be made in favour of electric or petrol broughams or landaulets which, unlike horse carriages, are already limited to ten miles an hour; and whether Peers and
    258
    Members of this House have right of ingress and egress when coming backwards and forwards to the House during the session as a matter of privilege.
    LORD BALCARRES: The Answer to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's Question is identical with that which I have just given to the hon. Baronet the Member for Barrow-in-Furness. The Answer to the second paragraph is in the negative; the roads which cannot be used are specifically stated. In answer to the third paragraph the First Commissioner is not prepared to make any exception to the rule. In answer to the last paragraph the First Commissioner has no grounds for thinking that Peers and Members of Parliament have any privilege of travelling by motor-car over roads which are closed, under the provision of an Act of Parliament, to such traffic.
    MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU: May I ask whether, under the Sessional Orders, Members of this House have not the right of free access to the House?
    MR. SPEAKER: That is really not a question on which the hon. Member for Chorley is competent to give an Answer.
    MR. SOARES: Is it not the case that the people using Hyde Park have been protected because they are wealthy, while similar privileges are refused to inhabitants of country districts.
    LORD BALCARRES: If country districts were regulated by a similar Act of Parliament the inhabitants would have the same privileges. As regards the wealth of the users of Hyde Park, the hon. Member's Question is purely gratuitous, as the people who suffer under this regulation are generally far more wealthy than those who are protected by it.

    Big Ben.
    MR. J. F. HOPEasked the First Commissioner of Works if he was aware that Big Ben on the previous evening assumed a livid complexion.
    MR. CROOKS: It was green with envy.
    LORD BALCARRESasked that notice be given of the Question.

    Scarcity of Cottages at Thakeham, Sussex.
    MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the scarcity of cottages in the Thakeham Rural District, in Sussex, in consequence of which a man and his family have been compelled against their will to seek shelter in the workhouse, and other families were living in huts in the woods, and one large family in a barn, and to the fact that the Rural District Council of Thakeham have been unable to erect two cottages for their own carters, as no land is available for the purpose of cottage building, and whether it is his intention to tike any action in the matter.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I have communicated with the Clerk to the Thakeham Rural District Council, who is also Clerk to the Guardians of the Thakeham Union, with regard to this Question, and he informs me that he is not aware of any case in the union where a man and his family have been compelled to seek shelter in the work-house as a result of the scarcity of cottage accommodation, nor has he any knowledge of families having on this account to live in huts in the woods. The case of a family who were living in a barn has recently come before the district council, but I understand that these persons were turned out of their cottage owing to their being considered undesirable tenants, and that throughout their occupation of the barn a cottage within half a mile of it stood empty and unlet. Their occupation of the barn has now ceased. The district council appear to have been unable at present to acquire land for the erection of two cottages for their carters at the particular spot desired, but the Clerk states that the subject is still receiving their consideration. He adds that the question of scarcity of cottages in the district will come before the council at their meeting to-day, and he promises to inform me of the result.
    MR. SCHWANN: I will put further Questions on this matter.

    Borrowings by Local Authorities.
    MR. BRIGHT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the practice of some local authorities to borrow money for special purposes by means of overdraft instead of by recourse to the method provided by statute; whether, in Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board presented to this House for confirmation, such borrowings have been legalised; if so, whether, in each of such cases, an inquiry has been made in the presence of the ratepayers affected, and the circumstances recorded; and what are the number and amounts of such borrowings so legalised since 1895, and at present intended by the Board to be legalised.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am aware that in some instances local authorities have borrowed money by means of unauthorised overdrafts. The Local Government Board strongly disapprove of this practice; but there have been cases in which they have considered that the facts justified the insertion in Provisional Orders of clauses conferring borrowing or other powers on the local authority with a view to the overdraft being paid off. In each case, before the Order has been made, a local inquiry has been held after notice inviting any person interested to attend, and the circumstances have been reported to the Board by the inspector holding the inquiry. Cases of the kind since 1895 have not been numerous, but an examination of the Papers relating to a very large number of Provisional Orders would be necessary before the precise facts could be given.
    MR. BRIGHT: Is it the custom to surcharge members of councils who exceed their powers in this respect?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, Sir.

    Newry Inland Revenue Appeal.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether, in view of the statement made

    261
    by Judge Orr in the appeal case of Inland Revenue v. McArdle, at Newry Quarter Sessions on January 5th last, in regard to the magistrates who heard the case in the first instance, he can say if any official notice has been taken of their action.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): I have seen a newspaper report of the County Court Judge's remarks in this case. It appears that the magistrates at petty sessions dismissed the case, and that, on appeal by the Inland Revenue authorities, a conviction was had at quarter sessions, the County Court Judge remarking that he could not conceive why the magistrates dismissed the case. There is nothing in this observation to call for any action against the magistrates, and I see no reason why the matter should be brought to the notice of the Lord Chancellor.

    Newry Quarter Sessions—Case of John M'Ardle.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of John M'Ardle, who was convicted at the Newry Quarter Sessions on January 4th last on the charge of selling spirits and beer without a licence; whether M'Ardle, who refused to pay the fine imposed, was sent to gaol on April 11th last, but on the representation of a memorial sent to the Lord-Lieutenant was liberated on May 24th last; and if he can say by whom was the memorial signed, and what was the authorities' report in regard to it.
    MR. ATKINSON: M'Ardle, who was convicted of a revenue offence, namely, selling exciseable liquors without a licence, was released from prison by order of the Board of Inland Revenue, acting under the powers conferred upon them by Section 35 of the Inland Revenue Regulation Act, 1890. A memorial on the prisoner's behalf was received by the Lord-Lieutenant and transmitted by him to the Board, but the Board's order was made before their receipt of the memorial and without any knowledge of it. It would be contrary to practice to give the names of memorialists, or to state the purport of official reports.

    Kerry National School Inspector.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the service of Mr. Connolly, Inspector of National Schools in Kerry Circuit, entitles him to full pension in case of his desiring to retire.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG,): Mr. Connolly is not yet entitled to retire on the maximum pension, seeing that his pensionable service amounts to but thirty-two years.

    Extra Subjects in Irish Schools.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that under the system of calculation of the attendances necessary to qualify a pupil for special fees in extra subjects lately enforced by the Board of National Education, a pupil who has attended 160 lessons in an extra subject on 160 days in the school year may be disqualified, whilst payment may be made for pupils who have only attended seventy lessons in the same subject; and whether, in view of the effect of this rule in depriving teachers of fees, he will consider the advisability of having it relaxed.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I beg to refer to the reply given by my right hon. friend the Member for Dover to a similar Question put by the hon. Member for South Kerry on March 28th, 1904.†

    Alleged Mutilation of Cattle in North Antrim.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any report has been made to the police as to the mutilation of cattle on the 14th instant at a place called Dunloy, in the north of county Antrim; and whether he can state the name of the owner of the cattle and the circumstances of the outrage.
    MR. WALTER LONG: On the 17th instant the Rev. P. Darragh, of Dunloy, reported to the police that a few nights
    † See (4) Debates, cxxxii., 849

    263
    previously his cow and calf were maliciously injured, the hair being cut off their tails. The police upon examining the animals found the fact to be as stated. The animals were not mutilated. The police have not yet been able to discover the offender, but he carefully pursuing their investigation of the case.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Seeing that this clergyman is the parish priest, will the outrage be denounced by the hon. Member for North Antrim?
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: And will it figure in the next Return as a crime?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    The Chief Secretary and the Condition of the Irish Working Classes.
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, during his recent tour in Ireland, he made any special inquiries as to the condition of agricultural labourers and the working classes in towns in Ireland; and, if so, whether he proposes to make any legisla-lative proposals dealing with their position.
    MR. WALTER LONG: No, Sir.

    Irish Agricultural Department—Expenditure.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, since it appears that out of a sum of £1,237 odd paid from the Endowment Fund since April 1st, 1900, to officers serving in the Irish Agricultural Department, £1,067 approximately was paid to Protestants and about £170 to Catholics, he can explain the excess in payments to officials of the former as compared with those of the latter religious denomination.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The hon. Member has been repeatedly informed that the question of religion is not taken into account in decisions relating to the appointment and remuneration of the Department's officers.

    Bishop of Limerick and Sunday Motoring.
    MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the remarks publicly made by the Protestant Bishop of Limerick with reference to the scandal given and inconvenience caused to congregations on Sundays by motorists; and whether he proposes to take any steps to remedy the evils complained of.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The reply to the first inquiry is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative.
    MR. LUNDON: Did the right hon. Gentleman in the course of his tour visit the Treaty Stone of Limerick, that monument of English perfidy?
    MR. MACVEAGH: Is he aware that the Bishop of Limerick especially complained of the motoring of the Chief Secretary himself, and that the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland has also publicly denounced him for motoring on Sundays?
    MR. WALTER LONG: As to the first Question of the hon. Member for South Down I take it it is a surmise.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Oh, no, I will send you the papers.
    MR. WALTER LONG: As to the other, the hon. Member knows the exact facts and I have nothing to add to them.
    MR. LUNDON: Not the first time we have heard of the law makers being the chief law breakers.

    South African War—Case of Thomas Leonard.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a military prisoner, named Thomas Leonard, of the Royal Dublin Fusiliers, is at present in Maryborough Prison under a life sentence for an offence against military law committed in South Africa during the late war; and whether, seeing that many other military prisoners who were under long

    265
    sentences, and one who was sentenced to death for murder, have been discharged, he can say why Leonard is still in prison; and whether it is intended to order his discharge at once; and, if not, what special circumstances require that when the South African War is over Leonard is the only prisoner of the late war in prison in Ireland.
    MR. WALTER LONG: In cases such as this the Lord-Lieutenant is guided, in the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, by the advice of the military authorities. I have already informed the hon. Member that the Army Council is unable, at present, to recommend a remission of the sentence imposed on the prisoner, and that the question of his release will be further considered by the Army Council in October next, when he will have completed three years of his sentence.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: But why is this man detained while another man in the same regiment who was sentenced to death has been discharged?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I have ex plained that the military authorities have not advised his release, and the Lord-Lieutenant has no right to demand their reasons.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: But I suppose I have a right to demand them, and I again ask why a man convicted of murder has been discharged and this man detained? Seeing that the war is over, is the whole force of the British Crown now directed against this single unfortunate prisoner?
    MR. SPEAKER: Notice must be given of any further Question.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Oh, I will give notice, and I will give the recuiting sergeants in Ireland notice too.

    Coltsmann Estate, County Kerry.
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have yet taken any steps to deal with the application of evicted tenants and reinstated tenants on the
    266
    Coltsmann Estate, county Kerry, in view of the time during which the estate has been before the Commissioners; and what has been the result of such steps.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I beg to refer to the reply given to the hon. Member's Question of the 5th instant. † No further steps have been taken.

    The Irish Land Judge's Court.
    MR. MURPHYI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to recent proceedings in the Land Judge's Court, in Dublin, relating to the insufficiency of funds for the purpose of carrying on sales of estates in Court; whether this insufficiency is caused by any new regulations issued to the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, or in any event, whether he proposes to take any steps to expedite the winding-up of this Court in accordance with the Resolution agreed to by Parliament.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I beg to refer to the reply which I gave to this and similar Questions yesterday.‡
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: How can the Judge carry out the directions of the Court if funds are stopped?
    MR. WALTER LONG: That Question is an unfair one.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Why?
    MR. WALTER LONG: The hon. Member knows the cause of the present deadlock, and I am doing my best to find some way out of it.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I do not wish to rest under any imputation. The right hon. Gentleman must know that when the Resolution was passed by this House ordering the Land Judge to wind up the business of the Court, there had been £15,000,000 applied for under the Land Act, 1903, and it was perfectly well known that this stoppage would take place.
    † See (4) Debates, cxlvii., 717.
    ‡ See page 98.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I do not know whether that be the case, but if it is it only strengthens my point. Nobody can be more anxious than the Government and myself to find a way out of the difficulty.

    Redistribution.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will state when he proposes to proceed with his Redistribution Resolutions; and if he can state what are the terms of the Resolutions he intends to submit to the House.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, I cannot name the day when the House will be asked to deal with the Resolutions which are to be proposed by the Government on the subject of redistribution, and I think the hon Gentleman will agree this is not the occasion on which the House should be made acquainted with their contents.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman mention the year?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir, 1905.

    The Unemployed Bill.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can fix a date for taking the Committee stage of the Unemployed Bill.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not yet in a position to name a date for the Committee stage of this Bill.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: Seeing Monday next is practically unoccupied, would that not be a favourable opportunity?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: So far as I can foresee, that day will be occupied by the Aliens Bill.
    MR. CROOKS: Will the Unemployed Bill have precedence over the Redistribution Resolutions.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: They are not at all in pari materia.
    MR. CROOKSrose amid cries of "Order."
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member having asked a Question should await the reply.
    MR. CROOKS: I understood the Prime Minister had given way. As he is aware I have no knowledge of Latin, will the right hon. Gentleman put his Answer into English?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was going to supply the hon. Gentleman and others with a loose translation, which is that you cannot really compare Resolutions with a Bill from the point of view of the business of the House, because the one involves First and Second Reading, Committee, and possibly a Report Stage, and a Third Reading, while a Resolution is dealt with at once as a substantive matter.
    AN HON. MEMBER: A very loose translation if not lucid.

  NEW BILL.
    PROVISIONAL ORDERS (MARRIAGES) BILL.
    "To enable Provisional Orders to bi made for removing any invalidity or doubt attaching to Marriages by reason of some informality," presented by Mr. Cochrane; supported by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas; to be read a second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 256.]
    MR. SPEAKER'S RETIREMENT BILL.
    Read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

ALIENS BILL.
MR. SPEAKER: The Instruction standing in the name of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil is not in order, because it is a mandatory Instruction to a Committee of the Whole House.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. GRANT LAWSON (Yorkshire, N. R. Thirsk) in the Chair.]
Clause 1:—
MR. LEVY (Leicestershire,)*MR. LEVY (Leicestershire, Loughborough) moved the postponement of

269
the consideration of the clause. He pointed out that there was very great diversity of opinion on the opposite side of the House as to the clause as at present drafted. There were, in fact, 149 Amendments put down to the Bill, and ninety-five of those Amendments appeared in the names of the Government or of their supporters, and out of those ninety-five Amendments no fewer than thirty-one had been put down by the Government and their supporters in opposition to Clause 1. That, in his opinion appeared to be reasonable grounds for suggesting the postponement of the clause until a later stage of the Bill had been reached. Another reason why he suggested the postponement was that he believed the objects the Government professed to desire to attain could be secured by means of expulsion. He was not alone in that view. Indeed, he was well fortified in his opinion, because the chief of the London police, Mr. Henry, in his evidence before the Royal Commission on this subject strongly advocated expulsion as the best means of keeping alien criminals oat of this country and stated they never could be identified to be prevented coming into the country. Sir Edward Bradford gave expression to a like opinion, adding that any measure for the mere exclusion of criminals was almost impossible of good effect. One of the chief London magistrates, Sir Albert de Rutzen, also entirely approved of the expulsion clause, and Agreed with Mr. Henry and Sir Edward Bradford that, if expulsion were adopted, it would in a very short time have the effect of clearing out most of the criminal aliens from this country. He therefore thought it would be desirable that they should postpone the consideration of Clause 1 until they had dealt-with the question of expulsion.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: On a point of order, may I ask whether the hon. Member is speaking to Clause 1, or whether he is not making a Second Reading speech?
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must confine himself to the point whether expulsion should come before exclusion in the Bill.
MR. CHURCHILL: I presume, however, that the hon. Member would be entirely in order in bringing forward any arguments which would tend to justify the second clause being taken before the first.
THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly.
MR. CHURCHILL: And those arguments need not merely have relevance to the advantage of expulsion over exclusion?
MR. LEVYsaid he did not propose to go into the merits or demerits of Clause 1, but he contended that he was perfectly in order, and that the hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield had shown himself somewhat too zealous in his advocacy of the Bill, because, after all, what he was endeavouring to show was that every-thing which it was desired to secure by the Bill could be attained by taking the expulsion clause first, and then, if it could be shown that an expulsion clause gave them all the powers that were desired, the Government might find it to their advantage to redraft Clause 1. It was a question whether it was desirable to set up such highly expensive machinery as was provided for in Clause 1, It was also a question whether it was desirable to give such great powers, hitherto unknown, to a non-judicial tribunal. Again, it was a question whether it was well to take a step which would revolutionise the whole shipping industry of Great Britain, an industry carried on, undoubtedly, to the profit of the shipowners, and certainly to the great advantage of the British public. Under these circumstances he thought he was fully entitled to ask for the postponement of the clause, and he begged to move accordingly.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be postponed."—(Mr. Levy.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,)said he was sorry he could not accept the Amendment. The hon. Member had suggested that if Clause 2 were taken first and fully discussed, the Government

271
might deem it desirable to abandon Clause 1.
MR. LEVY: Or redraft it, at any rate.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he did not think the hon. Member had shown any sufficient reason for altering the drafting of the Bill, which had been most carefully considered not only by himself and the Attorney-General, but also by the draftsmen. They certainly thought that the objects they hoped to secure by the Bill would be best carried out in the manner proposed in the Bill as at present framed. The hon. Member had called attention to the opinions expressed by Mr. Henry and Sir Edward Bradford, but he would like to point out that the evidence which had been quoted dealt solely with the question of the expulsion of criminals, whereas this Bill was intended to deal with the introduction of undesirable aliens. He admitted that when the Bill was before the Grand Committee last year the postponement of Clause 1 was agreed to, but the circumstances now were altogether different. After all, this clause embodied the main principle of the Bill, and surely it was much better that they should give effect, in the first instance, to the principle before they attempted to deal with the machinery. In his opinion, if they were to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member, the only effect would be to make the Bill unintelligible, and therefore he must ask the House to support him in opposing the Amendment.
SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucester-shire,)said, as he understood it, the hon. Member's object in moving the postponement of Clause 1 was that, if they could first deal with the question of expulsion and could deal with it in the manner they were prepared to, even to the extent of strengthening the powers proposed in the Bill, it might be found unnecessary to proceed with the other
proposals in the measure. Of course, he perfectly understood it was not in order to discuss the merits of the clause on this Amendment, and he realised that there were great differences of opinion as to whether the Bill was a measure for the protection of British working men against the competition of foreigners, or whether it was merely a measure for the exclusion of undesirable aliens. They knew that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant were on one side, while the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, holding an. entirely different view, was on the other; and that being so, he would ask, was it wise to plunge into this mass of controversial issues? Would it not be better to deal first with the question of expulsion as against exclusion?
MR. CHURCHILLfailed to see why the Home Secretary should have declined to follow the precedent which he set last year in regard to this clause. But, at any rate, it was gratifying to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill had been well drafted. When they remembered how the last measure was drafted it was certainly satisfactory to hear on such a high authority that the inaccuracies, anomalies, and contradictions which were then apparent would not be discovered, in the dissection of the present Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had said he would not accept the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the Lough-borough Division of Leicestershire. It might be in vain to urge him to modify that position, but he did urgently trust-that this attitude of uncompromising resistance thus displayed on the very first Amendment was not to be taken as the precursor of the treatment to be accorded-to all future Amendments in the course of the discussion of the measure.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 165; Noes, 189. (Division List No. 211.)

AYES.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Black, Alexander William

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Allen, Charles P.

Blake, Edward

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Barlow, John Emmott

Boland, John

Burke, E. Haviland

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Brigg, John

Burt, Thomas

Benn, John Williams

Bright, Allan Heywood

Buxton, NE(York,NR,Whitby

Caldwell, James

Helme, Norval Watson

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Cameron, Robert

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Price, Robert John

Causton, Richard Knight

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Priestley, Arthur

Cawley, Frederick

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Reddy, M.

Channing, Francis Allston

Jacoby, James Alfred

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Richards, Thomas

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Rickett, J. Compton

Cogan, Denis J.

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Jordan, Jeremiah

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

Joyce, Michael

Roche, John

Crean, Eugene

Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Cullinan, J.

Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan. W

Runciman, Walter

Dalziel, James Henry

Kilbride, Denis

Russell, T. W.

Delany, William

Lambert, George

Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay(Galway)

Lamont, Norman

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

Schwann, Charles E.

Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Dobbie, Joseph

Leese, Sir J. F. (Acciington)

Sheehy, David

Donelan, Captain A.

Leng, Sir John

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Doogan, P. C.

Lewis, John Herbert

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Duffv, William J.

Lough, Thomas

Slack, John Bamford

Duncan, J. Hastings

Lundon, W.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Edwards, Frank

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Soares, Ernest J.

Ellice, Capt EC(SAndrw'sB'ghs

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Spencer, RtHnCR (Northants)

Ellis, John Edward (Notts)

M'Crae, George

Sullivan, Donal

Emmott, Alfred

M'Kenna, Reginald

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Evans, Sir F. H. Maidstone)

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Thomas, J A(Glamorgan, Gower

Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Tomkinson, James

Farrell, James Patrick

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Fenwick, Charles

Muldoon, John

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Ferguson. R. C. Munro (Leith)

Murnaghan, George

Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

Ffrench, Peter

Murphy, John

Wallace, Robert

Field, William

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S

Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.)

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Nussey, Thomas Willans

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Fuller, J. M. F.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Wills, A. Walters (N. Dorset.

Furness. Sir Christopher

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R

Gilhooly, James

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

O'Dowd, John

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

Hammond, John

O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.

Wood, James

Harcourt, Lewis

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Woodhouse, Sir JT(Huddersf'd

Hardie, J Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

O'Shee, James John

Young, Samuel

Harrington, Timothy

Parrott, William

Hayden, John Patrick

Partington, Oswald

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Levy and Dr. Hutchirson.

Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W(Leeds

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Chamberlain, RtHnJ.A.(Worc.

Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Chapman, Edward

Allsopp, Hn. George

Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Anson, Sir Wm. Reynell

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Cochrane, Hn. Thos H. A. E.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Bingham, Lord

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn. H. O.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Arrol, Sir William

Bond, Edward

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H

Boulnois, Edmund

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Bagot, Capt Josceline FitzRoy

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Brassey, Albert

Davenport, Wm. Bromley

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Brymer, William Ernest

Denny, Colonel

Baird, John George Alexander

Campbell, Rt Hn J. A(Glasgow)

Dickson, Charles Scott

Balcarres, Lord

Campbell, J. HM(Dublin Univ.

Doughty, Sir George

Baldwin, Alfred

Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers

Balfour, Rt Hn A. J. (Manch'r)

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Cayzer, Sir Chas. William

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart

274

275

Faber, George Denison (York

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lucas, Col Francis (Lowestoft

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Fellowes, RtHnAilwyn Edward

Lucas, Reginald J(Portsmouth

Round, Rt. Hn. James

Fergusson, Rt. HnSir J(Manc'r

Macdona, John Cumming

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

Rutherford, John (Lancashire

Finlay, Sir R. B(Inv'rn'ssB'ghs

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

Fisher, William Hayes

M'lver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Malcolm, Ian

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

Manners, Lord Cecil

Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse

Flower, Sir Ernest

Marks, Harry Hananel

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Forster, Henry William

Maxwell, RtHnSir HE(Wigt'n)

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

Galloway, William Johnson

Maxwell, W. J. H(Dumfriesshire

Sharpe, Wm. Edward T.

Gardner, Ernest

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Shaw-Stewart, Sir H (Renfrew

Garfit, William

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Gordon, HnJ. E(Elgin & Nairn)

Milner, Rt Hn. Sir Fredk. G.

Smith, HC(North'mbTyneside

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Milvain, Thomas

Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

Gordon, MajEvans(T'rH'mlets

Mitchell, Edw(Fermanagh, N.)

Spear, John Ward

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

Stanley, Edw. Jas (Somerset)

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Montagu. Hn. J Scott (Hants.

Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes)

Greene, W. Raymond(Cambs)

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Hain, Edward

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Halsey, Rt. Hn Thomas F.

Morpeth, Viscount

Talbot, RtHnJ.G (Oxf'dUniv.

Hamilton, Marqof(L'nd'nderry

Morton, A. H. Aylmer

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford

Mount, William Arthur

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Thornton, Percy M.

Hay, Hn. Claude George

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

Tollemache, Henry James

Heath, Sir Jas. (StaffordsNW

Murray, ColWyndham(Bath)

Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

Heaton, John Henniker

Nicholson, Wm. Graham

Tuke. Sir John Batty

Helder, Augustus

O'Neill, Hn. Robert Torrens

Turnour, Viscount

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Pease, Herb. P. (Darlington)

Vincent, Col. Sir C EH(Sheffield

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Peel, Hn. W. Robt. Wellesley

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Pemberton, John S. G.

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

Percy, Earl

Welby, Lt-Col. AC E (Taunton)

Hozier, Hon. Jas. Henry Cecil

Pierpoint, Robert

Whiteley, H. (Ashton undLyne

Hunt, Rowland

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Jeffreys, Rt Hn. Arthur Fred

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T(Denbigh)

Purvis, Robert

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

Rankin, Sir James

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Younger, William

Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)

Ratcliff, R. F.

Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

Legge, Col. Hn. Heneage

Renwick, George

Long, Col Chas. W. (Evesham

Ridley, S. Forde

Long, RtHnWalter (Bristol, S.

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas Thomson

Lowe, Francis William

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield

SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he desired to move the Amendment standing in his name in order to elicit the definition which the Government attached to the persons to whom the Act was to apply. The Bill was very difficult to understand, and was very obscure; and he could not but think that it was in conflict with the Merchant Shipping Act. Any definition different from that of the Merchant Shipping Act would cause trouble and inconvenience to ship-owners.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDasked if the right hon. Gentleman was in order.
THE CHAIRMANsaid he understood that the right hon. Gentleman was only asking a Question which he thought it would be to the convenience of the Committee should be asked.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he had not the slightest intention of obstructing the Bill. If the Secretary of State had power to define who was "a cabin passenger" and who was a "steerage passenger," then the provisions of the Act would be different from the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act. That would cause confusion and inconvenience; and in his opinion the matter should be dealt with solely by reference to the Merchant Shipping Act.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 6, to leave out the words 'an immigrant,' and insert the words 'a passenger.'"—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs): said the scheme of the Bill was not to adopt the law which obtained in the United States, under which all passengers were subjected to examination before they were allowed to land. That would be the result of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Merchant Shipping Act; but the Bill dealt with another matter altogether.
MR. CHURCHILLsaid the right hon. Gentleman did not state what was the definition of the Government of "a cabin passenger."
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that Clause 8 provided that steerage passengers included all passengers not declared by the Secretary of State to be cabin passengers.
MR. CHURCHILLsaid that the meaning of the word "immigrant" depended on the definition of the words "steerage passenger" and "cabin passenger." What precise significance did the Government attach to the words "cabin passenger." The Committee ought to know.
MR. BRYCEsaid he was surprised that the Home Secretary did not realise the undesirability of the double definition. Not only were there to be two definitions as regarded passengers; but there were to be distinctions as between different ports. That would be certain to cause trouble and inconvenience.
MR. LOUGHsaid that the meaning of the word "immigrant" should be cleared up before the Committee proceeded further. They were told that an "immigrant" must not land at certain ports; but then they were informed that the word did not include any person who had a ticket for a foreign
278
port. The Committee ought to know what they were talking about. The clause provided that an immigrant should not be landed except at a port at which there was an immigration officer. But Clause 8 stated that immigrants included a certain class of persons who could land. If the matter could be cleared up now it would expedite the progress of the Bill.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid that the Amendment was of some moment to masters of vessels. The master would first have to make a return to the Board of Trade; and then the names were to be reshuffled, some passengers being put into the cabin class and some into the steerage class. He would suggest that if the Home Secretary adopted the Merchant Shipping Act he would get rid of the great difficulties which would otherwise arise. Even then he would not dispose of the distinction between rich and poor. The system was abandoned in the United States, the distinction having been officially declared to be "absurd." The Attorney-General admitted friction as regarded steerage passengers; why not also as regarded cabin passengers. He maintained it would cause friction in connection with both classes. On the cross-Channel traffic a few shillings would change a man from a steerage to a cabin passenger, and he would urge the Home Secretary to tell the Committee what he meant by "a cabin passenger." He hoped that the definition would be one which would not clash with the Merchant Shipping Act.
MR. EMMOTTsaid that the difficulty ought to be apparent to every hon. Gentleman. There was a penalty clause under which the master of a ship was liable to three months imprisonment if he made a wrong return, although he was to be given two definitions. The Attorney-General stated that the definition ought to be different from the definition in the Merchant Shipping Act, but he did not indicate what the difference would be. Certainly the Committee ought not to pass from the matter without further explanation
MR. J. A. PEASE (Essex,)said the Committee ought to

279
be informed what the proposal of the Government was. He did not understand why the definition of the Merchant Shipping Act should not be adopted. That there should be some uniformity in the definition of cabin passengers in various Acts of Parliament must be obvious. The definition in the Merchant Shipping Act was negative rather than positive in its character. It amounted however, to this, that a passenger became a cabin passenger if he messed at the same table as the chief or second officer of the ship. If he paid at the rate of at least 30s. per week as his fare in passages north of the equator, and 20s. per week, south of the equator from British ports, a certain cubicle space must be allotted to him and so on. The Attorney General if he could not adhere to this definition, at least should give reasons why the definition in the Merchant Shipping Act was unsuitable in this Bill.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act would be absolutely inadequate for short voyages such as from the Continent to the British Islands. He would, however, suggest that the matter should stand over until Clause 8 was under discussion. It was, in his opinion, absolutely necessary that there should be elasticity in the definition of who was a cabin passenger and who a steerage passenger.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he thought it was a great pity to make distinctions on the ground of means. It was not in accordance with English law and practice with regard to the treatment of people arriving in this country. Further, a great number of persons travelling from the Continent would be able to evade the provisions of the clause altogether. He would give a concrete case to show why "passenger" should be substituted for "immigrant." A man was landed at Liverpool five weeks ago; the steamship company gave him 5s. and put him into a lodging-house. Subsequently, he was discovered to be a lunatic at large; and was sent to an asylum. That man would now remain a charge on the rates for the "rest of his natural life; and his age was only twenty-two. He was brought back from the United States, having been rejected at New York, and dumped down
280
at Liverpool. He could speak neither English, French, nor German, and it was impossible to ascertain to what country he belonged. Other men of that class could come in if the word" immigrant were retained in the clause; and a number of the evils which this Bill was designed to meet would remain in an even intensified form.
MR. CHURCHILLsaid that there were two questions at issue. There was the inconvenience of the double definition; and also the question as to what was the Government definition of the words "cabin passenger." The Attorney-General stated why the definition in the Merchant Shipping Act would not be applicable; but what was the definition which the Government proposed?
THE CHAIRMAN: I think this matter had better be discussed on Clause 8.
MR. CHURCHILLsaid he understood that this was the matter on which the discussion was initiated.
THE CHAIRMAN: I allowed the right hon. Baronet to ask a Question to which the Attorney General has replied.
MR. CHURCHILLsaid that as yet the Committee had not been informed what was the definition of the Government with reference to the words "cabin passenger or the word" immigrant." The hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool agreed as to the undesirability of proceeding without having a definition of these words. He sympathised very strongly with the objection against drawing class distinctions based solely or the possession of money. To draw a distinction between a man who could afford a cabin passage and a man who could only afford a steerage passage was absurd. If a man were a lunatic or an idiot he could come in if he could pay for a cabin passage.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that without further explanation it was impossible for the Committee to understand the meaning of the Act. At Newhaven there was a great deal of

281
traffic of exactly the same character as that at Dover and Folkestone, and unless some advance statement were made by the Home Secretary as to how it was intended to deal with the matter, the Committee would have considerable difficulty in discussing this clause at all.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORhoped the Amendment would not be pressed to a division, as otherwise many Members would be placed in a very inconvenient position. The effect of the Amendment would be to bring about wholesale inspection of all on board ship, other than the master and crew. The Committee were considering, as practical men, the conditions of the passenger traffic entering this country not only from the East but also from the West. About 170,000 passengers came to England yearly from America and Canada, and they were, of a very different class from that which came from Europe and was largely responsible for the presence in our population of many lunatics, idiots, paupers, and criminals. From the point of view of the practical shipowner he submitted that it was very desirable that the Government should have a certain elasticity in the terms proposed. Personally, he thought it was almost impossible at the present stage to press for an exact definition of how they intended to meet trades differing so largely in their composition. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Baronet would be content with having raised a most valuable point, and not press it further at present. In any case, he could not possibly support the Amendment.
MR. STUART SAMUELpointed out that no sooner had the Committee commenced the consideration of the Bill than it was lound impossible to define an alien, because it practically depended upon the definition of a cabin passenger. To leave the matter to the Home Secretary was to leave the whole question in the air, and the whole Bill might as well be left to the Home Secretary. The master of a ship would practically have to decide the question of when a cabin passenger was not a cabin passenger, and all information was refused as to
282
how the point should be decided. Unless this point were settled he failed to see how the Committee could proceed to the other clauses.
MR. WALLACEasked whether the word "immigrant" as used in the clause included persons who landed in this country intending to tranship and go elsewhere.
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: If the hon. and learned Member will refer to Clause 8 he will see that they are excepted
MR. WALLACEasked whether it was intended to prevent such people from landing at other than immigration ports.
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: Certainly not, if they are going merely to transmigrate.
MR. WALLACEcalled the Attorney General's attention to the wording of Clause 8—that this word "immigrant" should not include—
"Any such passenger who shows to the satisfaction of the immigration officer concerned with the case that he desires to land in the United Kingdom only for the purpose of immediately proceeding elsewhere."
But how could he "satisfy the immigration officer" unless he was brought to an immigration port?
THE CHAIRMAN: Whether or not the definition is correct must be discussed on Clause 8.
MR. WALLACEsaid he was anxious to know the meaning of Clause 1. Were immigrants intending to tranship prohibited by Clause 1 from landing otherwise than at an immigration port? The Attorney-General said that by Clause 8 they were not prohibited. But under that clause they must go to an immigration port and satisfy the immigration officer.
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: But not land there.
MR. WALLACEasked whether the Attorney-General really suggested that an immigrant might land anywhere he

283
pleased if he declared he was going to tranship.
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: The ship comes to the port and the examination takes place on the ship. If the intending passenger can satisfy the immigration Officer that he is going to land merely for the purpose of proceeding to some other country he does not fall within the prohibition of the Bill.
MR. WALLACEsubmitted that that was not the point at all. If an immigrant intending to land to go elsewhere came across to England on a ship that did not call at an immigrant port, could he or could he not land at another port? The terms of the Bill did not cover the case at all. How could the Committee proceed with the discussion when the Attorney-General, on being asked the meaning of the word, admitted that the definition clause would make this clause ridiculous? At any rate the two clauses taken together were ridiculous. What the Committee wanted to know was whether an immigrant who intended to tranship could land at any port other than an immigrant port?
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: Yes.
MR. WALLACEasked whether the Attorney-G neral could show anything in the Bill excluding such immigrants from the operation of Clause 1. He could not, because it was not there. That showed the absurdity of the position. As he could not get a satisfactory Answer he would move to report Progress.
THE CHAIRMAN: It is obvious that the clauses must be put down in some order. The definition clause must come in somewhere, and, as a matter of fact, it comes after the words we are discussing, do not think the fact that the definition clause does not come before the first two words of the Bill is a subject for a Motion to report Progress.
MR. BRYCEpointed out that the Committee were in a great difficulty in discussing this clause because part of the enacting power was contained in Clause 8 and part in Clause 1. By Progress being reported an opportunity would be given to the Government of introducing operative words into Clause 1, and the Committee would then really be discussing matter of substance. A present, between Clauses 1 and 8, the Committee could not get at the meaning of the Bill, and therefore it was impossible to proceed further at present.
THE CHAIRMAN: Under Rule 23 it is entirely within my discretion, if I consider that a Motion is not a proper one, either to put the Question from the Chair forthwith, or to decline to put the Question at all. I think my proper course on this occasion is to adopt the intermediate course, and to put the Motion at once from the Chair.
Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 184; Noes, 210. (Division List No. 212.)

AYES.

Abraham. William (Cork, N. E.)

Cameron, Robert

Dilke, Bt. Hon. Sir Charles

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Dobbie, Joseph

Allen, Charles P

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Donelan, Captain A.

Asher, Alexander

Cawley, Frederick

Doogan, P. C.

Asquith, Rt Hn. Herbert Henry

Channing, Francis Allston

Duffy, William J.

Barlow, John Emmott

Cheetham, John Frederick

Duncan, J. Hastings

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Edwards, Frank

Benn, John Williams

Cogan, Denis J.

Ellice CaptEC(S Andrw'sBghs.

Black, Alexander William

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

Blake, Edward

Crean, Eugene

Emmott, Alfred

Boland, John

Crombie, John William

Evans, SirFrancisH. (Maidstone

Brigg, John

Cullinan, J.

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Bright, Allan Heywood

Dalziel, James Henry

Farrell, James Patrick

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Fenwick, Charles

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Burt, Thomas

Delany, William

Ffrench, Peter

Buxton, Sydney Chas. (Poplar)

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Field, William

Caldwell, James

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Lundon, W.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Flavin, Michael Joseph

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Runciman, Walter

Flynn, James Christopher

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Russell, T. W.

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

M'Crae, George

Samuel, HerbertL. (Cleveland)

Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Fuller, J. M. F.

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Schwann, Charles E.

Gilhooly, James

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle ofWight

Goddar,d Daniel Ford

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Grey, Rt Hn. Sir E. (Berwick)

Mooney, John J.

Sheehy, David

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Hammond, John

Moulton, John Fletcher

Slack, John Bamford

Harcourt, Lewis

Muldoon, John

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Hardie, J Keir (MerthyrTydvil

Murnaghan, George

Soares, Ernest J.

Harrington, Timothy

Murphy, John

Strachey, Sir Edward

Harwood, George

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Sullivan, Donal

Hayden, John Patrick

Nolan, Col John P. (Galway, N.)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

Helme, Norval Watson

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Tomkinson, James

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Ure, Alexander

Holland, Sir William Henry

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Wallace, Robert

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Jocoby, James Alfred

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

O'Dowd, John

White, George (Norfolk)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Jordan, Jeremiah

O'Malley, William

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Joyce, Michael

O'Mara, James

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Kearley, Hudson E.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N.

Parrott, William

Wills, Arthur Walters(N. Dorset

Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

Partington, Oswald

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

Kilbride, Denis

Paulton, James Mellor

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid

Lambert, George

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Lamont, Norman

Pirie, Duncan V.

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

Langley, Batty

Power, Patrick Joseph

Wood, James

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

Price, Robert John

Woodhouse. Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Priestley, Arthur

Young, Samuel

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Reddy, M.

Yoxall, James Henry

Leese, Sir Joseph F (Accrington

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Leng, Sir John

Richards, Thomas

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. Robert Spencer.

Levy, Maurice

Rickett, J. Compton

Lewis, John Herbert

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Lough, Thomas

Roche, John

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynto

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Cross, Herb, Shepherd (Bolton)

Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

Bingham, Lord

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Allsopp, Hon. George.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Davenport, William Bromley-

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bond, Edward

Davies, SirHoratioD.(Chatham

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Boulnois, Edmund

Denny, Colonel

Arpold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Brassey, Albert

Dickson, Charles Scott

Arrol, Sir William

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

Doughty, Sir George

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. SirH.

Brymer, William Ernest

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Gl'gow

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Baird, John George Alexander

Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

Fardell, Sir T. George

Balcarres, Lord

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Fellowes. Rt. HnAilwynEdward

Baldwin, Alfred

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ. (Manc'r.

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r.

Chamberlain, Rt. HnJ. A. (Worc.

Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Finlay, SirR. B. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs)

Balfour. RtHnGerald W. (Leeds

Chapman, Edward

Fisher, William Hayes

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Coates, Edward Feetham

Flower, Sir Ernest

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Forster, Henry William

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Galloway, William Johnson

Beach, Rt. HnSirMichael Hicks

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Gardner, Ernest

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Garfit, William.

286

287

Godson. Sir Augustus Frederick

M'lver, SirLewis (Edinburgh, W

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

Manners, Lord Cecil

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Marks, Harry Hananel

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Gordon. Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

Maxwell, RtHnSirH.E.(Wigt'n

Samuel, SirHarry S(Limehouse

Gorst, Rt. Hon, Sir John Eldon

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfrieshire

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Hain, Edward

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir FrederickG.

Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Milvain, Thomas

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Hamilton, Marq.of(L'nd'nderry

Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

Mitchell, Wiliam (Burnley).

Smith, H. C. (North'mbTyneside

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

Spear, John Ward

Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

Morpeth, Viscount

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Heaton, John Henniker

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Stanley. Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

Helder, Augustus

Mount, William Arthur

Stewart, SirMarkJ. M. M'Taggart

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Stock, James Henry

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Talbot, Lord E (Chichester.)

Houlosworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Myers, William Henry

TaIbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUniv.

Howard, John(Kent, Faversham

Nicholson, William Graham

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

Thornton, Percy M.

Hunt, Rowland

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert(Wellesley

Tollemache, Henry James

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Pemberton. John S. G.

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

Percy, Earl

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Pierpoint, Robert

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Turnout Viscount

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Vincent, Col Sir CEH(Sheffield)

Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir WilliamH.

Kimber, Sir Henry

Pretyman, Ernest George

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Pryce-lones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Purvis, Robert

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Lawson. Hn H L W. (Mile End)

Rankin, Sir James

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

Rasch, Sir Frederic Came

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Ratcliff, R. F.

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Renwick, George

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Ridley, S. Forde

Wylie, Alexander

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol. S)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Lowe, Francis William

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Younger, William

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Rolleston Sir John F L.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

Lucas. Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Macdona, John Cumming

Round, Rt. Hn. James

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Ruther ford, John (Lancashire

MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)said that anyone who had listened to the debate as he had done could not come to any other conclusion than that the Government had come down to this House for the second time without under-standing their own Bill. He thought it was a perfect farce, and it was altogether unfair to the House and to the Committee to come down with one of the principal measures of the session, and upon the very first Amendment show that they themselves had never seriously considered the real meaning of this particular clause. At the present moment he preferred to ask for a definition of the word "immigrant." Up to the present moment the Attorney-General, with a great
288
desire to meet reasonable criticism, and with all his ability and eloquence and his great desire to get the Bill through, had failed to explain satisfactorily to the Committee what the definition of this particular word was. Under these circumstances the Government must not complain if the progress of the measure was not so rapid as it would otherwise be. He well remembered how they were sneered at last year for moving Amendments which were to-day embodied in the Bill. But the right hon. Gentleman could not give a single explanation to satisfy the Committee. He was clever enough to know that this was not a workable Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman could not give a definition, why did he not

289
call in the support of some of his hon. friends? Where was the hon. Member for Sheffield, or the hon. Member for Stepney, who was supposed to be the pioneer of the movement? Could the hon. Member look with satisfaction on the inability of the Government to understand their own Bill? Why would he not give the Committee the interpretation of the word they were now considering. They had ascertained that if an immigrant, so-called, could only "travel as a cabin passenger he would be thoroughly welcome in the United Kingdom. That was a very important admission to have obtained. On the boats between Dieppe and Newhaven one end was steerage and the other end cabin, and a steerage passenger had only to pay the extra 2s. that was charged in order to become a cabin passenger. It was impossible for the Committee to go on with the discussion of the Bill, simply leaving the Home Secretary to state what was the interpretation of the word when they came to consider Clause 8, or leaving the right hon. Gentleman to include it in the rules to be passed under the Bill. That was not the way in which the Committee should be asked to consider a Bill of so far-reaching a character.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he did not think it necessary to add anything in the nature of a further explanation of what was meant by the words "cabin passengers." The second point on which the hon. Member for Perth desired information was in reference to the question of the transhipment of aliens. He ventured to think that was a question of the most absolute simplicity. If the hon. Members would look at the terms of the Bill they would find that the difficulties referred to did not really exist. It was not intended to prevent passengers going through the United Kingdom if they were going to America or elsewhere, but it was perfectly obvious that they must secure that a person who said he was landing in the United Kingdom only for the purpose of going elsewhere was really only landing for that purpose, and that he was going to America or some other country. They could secure that only if they insisted on his coming to an immigration port where he could be tested. The hon. Member for Perth would see
290
if he looked at the first sub-section of Clause 8 that the matter was put beyond all doubt. It was in the following terms—
"The expression 'immigrant' in this Act means an alien steerage passenger who is to be landed in the United Kingdom, but does not include any such passenger who shows to the satisfaction of the immigration officer on board concerned with the case that he desires to land in the United Kingdom only for the purpose of immediately proceeding to some destination out of the United Kingdom."
To allow persons who said that they were merely going through the United Kingdom to land at any other than an immigration port would be to encourage wholesale evasion. In order to ascertain whether a man was a transmigrant it was necessary that he should land at an immigration port. They did not desire to interfere with the transmigrants, but they must require that all such persons who came to immigration ports should give satisfaction to the officer on board that they were really going out of the kingdom. If they were allowed to land at other ports the country would be infested with persons who were really not transmigrants at all. He was sure that the hon. and learned Member for Perth would admit that what he had stated completely answered the point.
LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE (Wiltshire,)said he had listened with great interest to what had fallen from the Attorney-General. Owing to the ejaculation which was made across the Table of the House by the Home Secretary the Committee were led to an exactly opposite conclusion. It was not with the object of labouring that point that he rose, but he wanted to ask the Home Secretary a question which he thought was a fair one. If this discussion had proved nothing else, it had proved that a most important point was as to what the future definition of a cabin passsenger was going to be. Everything would depend on the terms of the orders to be issued under this Bill by the Home Office. That came clearly out under Sub-section 3 of Section 8, but the Committee were a long way from that section. What he wanted to ask the Home Secretary was whether he could undertake before the Committee reached Section 8, or, in any case, before they reached the Report stage of the Bill, to

291
lay before the House the general order contemplated under Sub-section 3 of Section 8 in regard to the expressions "passenger" and "steerage passenger." He could quite understand that certain ports would require special orders to be issued. He was not saying that these special orders should be laid on the Table of the House, but he submitted that they would be able to discuss that clause with infinitely greater ease and clearness if they had before them the text of the general order giving the definition of the terms referred to.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid the word "immigrant" was not a suitable one to use, ard that it would lead to all sorts of difficulties. Take the case of Liverpool, which would not be an immigration port and would have no officer. If a ship arrived at that port with a party of foreign immigrants on board, they could not be allowed to land over night because there would be no officer to allow them. That was one of the difficulties, and there were several others which would arise out of the use of the word "immigrant." The only chance of making the Bill successful, or of its doing any good at all, was by giving wide powers, though the Government should not be obliged to put them all into execution. He thought the word "passenger" would be a more appropriate one to use, because it would take in all immigrants, including "undesirables." There would be outcries from every port where they tried to put the Bill in force, and also from the shipping companies. If the Bill was to be put in force, let them have it in a form which would do some good. He thought this was a case where the widest power should be given to the Government and where there should be some chance of making the Bill useful instead of its being made a good Party cry.
MR. HARWOODsaid that there was no arrangement in the Bill, so far as he could see, to prevent these people from landing at a port where there was no immigration officer. They could land at such ports in thousands. If there was to be an immigration officer at every port in the United Kingdom,
292
then a great drawback would be put on the trade of this country. The House had been asked to vote £500,000 to back up the Cunard Company on the ground that our trade was declining; but he had lately seen placards in Vienna, Berlin, Hamburg, and other towns in Germany advising emigrants not to come through England. Would they come through this country if they were to be examined at every port? He was one of those who opposed the Bill upstairs last year on the ground that it was impractical and that it would cause more harm than good. It was a great modern, instance of the Chinaman burning down his house in order to get good roast pork
MAJOR SEELYsaid that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had shown that there would be great difficulties in carrying out this measure where there was transmigration traffic. He wished to draw attention to the difficulty in regard to the word "immigrant." He fancied that the Government could not define that word. No Member on the opposite side of the House dared say that he had read this. Bill carefully and that he had no doubt that the word "immigrant" was clearly defined in it. It might not be pleasant to hear, but it was true. According, to the Bill the definition of an immigrant was that if a man was rich however vicious he might be, he was not an immigrant; but that if he was, poor, however respectable, he was am immigrant and could be excluded from entering this country. That lay at the root of the whole of this Bill; and it was for that reason that he opposed the Bill of last year. Unless it could be really shown that under this Bill, the criminal, whether rich or poor, would be excluded he would oppose it.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid that the hon. Member for Bolton seemed to think that immigrants might go in immigrant ships to ports where there was no immigration officer. The object of the Bill was to deal with a certain class of immigrants at certain ports possessing immigration machinery.
MR. HARWOODsaid he would remind the right hon. Gentlemanthat the bulk

293
of these immigrants did not come to this country in immigrant ships, but in ordinary ships.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid that from inquiries which he had made, that was not]the case. Ninety-seven per cent, came in these ships to eight certain ports.
MR. LOUGHasked if that 97 per cent. included transmigrants.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid that it did. It was not the wish of the Government in any way to hamper foreigners who were bona fide passing through this country on their way to another nor was it their desire to hamper shipowners in that trade. He had put Amendments on the Paper which would, he believed, meet, to a large extent, their objections to the Bill. He could not accept the statement of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight that what the Government wanted was not to exclude the rich criminal but to touch the poor immigrant.
MAJOR SEELYsaid he did not utter a single word as to the wish of the Government to allow the rich criminal to land here. What he said was that the effect of the clause would be to allow the rich criminal to come in and to exclude the poor immigrant.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid that the criminal class was dealt with almost entirely under Clause 3; and that clause applied equally to rich and poor. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that it would be easy for a rich man to come in, and not for a poor man. He did not admit that at all, because it was perfectly possible for a respectable man to come here without necessarily showing that he had a certain amount of means, if he could show that he had an offer of employment in his pocket, or had friends or relations in this country. In that case there would be no difficulty whatever in the way of his getting in. These were the intentions of the Government. Hon. Members must see that the Government were not at all unwilling to receive their assistance in improving the Bill. Although they had not been able to accept the Amendment of the
294
hon. Member for Dundee, the discussions which had taken place upstairs last year had considerably modified their proposals, and the discussions which had taken place on the early part of the Bill would be borne in mind when they came to deal later with the definition clauses. He could not give any definite pledge to the noble Lord opposite in regard to the appeal he had made, but when they came to discuss Clause 8 dealing with definitions the Government would endeavour to indicate to the House the general lines of the Orders which would be prepared for the carrying out of the provisions of the Bill.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERasked if there was any reason against adopting "passenger" instead of "immigrant."
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he thought so. If they thought of the enormous inconvenience there would be—[An HON. MEMBER on the OPPOSITION Benches: To the rich man.]—not only to the rich man but to the poor, who did not come within the categories in this Bill.
MR. BRYCEsaid that the declarations of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General were not very clear to some hon. Members. Take the case of a Pole who, instead of coming in one of the big ships, came from Calais to Dover, which was not a port where there was an immigration officer. Would he be able to land at Dover? He understood that an immigrant ship was defined in the Bill as one which carried more than twenty alien steerage passengers. Would the Home Secretary tell the Committee how the Bill would work in that case?
MR. WALLACEasked if these alien immigrans came in batches of nineteen were they entitled to go anywhere they liked in this country?
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he was anxious to be perfectly frank on the matter. This Bill was intended to deal with the immigration of a certain class of aliens who arrived here in bulk. It

295
was perfectly true that it would be impossible, without great expense, to erect immigrant machinery at every port in this country. They could not, therefore, prevent the infiltration of some undesirable immigrants into this country. But in a great many cases the undesirables would be dealt with under Clauses 3 and 4. Every country had a right to say what class of people should come within their borders; and we were perfectly right in saying that we could not allow large numbers of undesirable immigrants to come in here.
MR. BRYCEsaid that immigrants could come in in batches of nineteen.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid that there were Amendments to reduce the number which would have consideration.
MR. WALLACEsaid that he was quite sure after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that they would come in bodies of nineteen.
MR. CHURCHILLsaid that the Committee would welcome the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. He, himself, thoroughly agreed that examination should be restricted to certain ports. That was the only means by which the machinery could be put into execution. The infiltration of immigrants in tens and fifteens would, however, continue. The right hon. Gentleman had not given any reason for rejecting the Amendment. He wanted to know, however, why should a criminal, a lunatic, an idiot, a prostitute, or a diseased person come into this country immune from the provisions of the Bill simply because he or she could afford to take a cabin ticket? He really did not believe that the Tory Party would adopt such an absurd position. What would happen? A rope would be fastened across the deck. All on one side would be immune; all on the other would not. The possession of some small change was to be the deciding factor whether or not an immigrant should be allowed to enter, and the effect of the measure was to draw a line between rich and poor. Poverty was to be more loathsome than lunacy, idiocy, or disease, and unless a satisfactory answer were given to the
296
Amendment the Bill would meet with very serious opposition.
MR. PEELsaid he had an Amendment on the Paper to reduce the number of immigrants from twenty to five; and he was glad to hear the statement of the Home Secretary on the point. As regarded the matter mentioned by the hon. Member for the Lichfield Division, the expression "passenger" included all passengers except those who might be directed by the Secretary of State to be regarded as cabin passengers. There was need for elasticity in the matter, and the Secretary of State should be given full liberty to lay down the necessary regulations. He was glad, therefore, that his right hon. friend had not given any undertaking as to what the precise regulations were to be.
MR. LOUGHsaid that the statement of the Home Secretary did not include transmigrants. If they were excluded there would be a tremendous interference with one of the most lucrative industries in this country. The Home Secretary admitted that the evil he had to deal with was a local one, and comparatively a small one. The right hon. Gentleman knew from deputations from shipowners what great injury might be inflicted, yet he proposed to confine the transmigrant traffic to nine ports. In his opinion it would be far better to exclude the transmigrants altogether than make such a regulation. Many important ports, such as Dover and Queenborough, would have to be excluded. The Home Secretary was not in the difficulty he thought he was in regard to this matter. The right hon. Gentleman asked how he could prevent transmigrants stopping in this country; but he could throw the onus on the shipping companies.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman appears to be straying from the Amendment before the Committee.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid that the question could be discussed on the next Amendment.
MR LOUGHsaid that in that case he would not continue the discussion.
MR. THEODORE TAYLOR (Lancashire,)said that, as yet, the Committee had had no definition of the word "immigrant." Surely it was not contended that poverty was the deciding reason why an idiot, a lunatic, or a criminal should be kept out of the country. They did not want idiots, lunatics, or criminals, whether they were rich or poor. He was a member of the Committee which considered the Bill last session, and he sympathised with the aims of the Government, which he believed to be good; but it seemed to him impossible that a poverty test should be imposed. To many people that would appear to be the main test. The substitution of the word "passenger" for "immigrant" would undoubtedly enlarge the scope of the Bill. Ifr would, however, much simplify matters if the "word "passenger" were substituted for the word "immigrant." If the Government had this discriminating power why should it not apply to the rich as well as the poor undesirable? Surely the Government did not wish the country to believe that the possession of money was the real test under the Bill. The acceptance of the Amendment was on all fours with the object of the measure; it would increase, not lessen, the power of the Government, and perhaps give them greater justification later on for exercising the option which the Bill would give them.
MR. MARKSsaid the great objection to the Amendment was to be found in the avowed object of the Bill itself, which was to restrict the influx into this country of a certain class of undesirable immigrants who came here, not to pass through, but to settle and to compete with the people of this country under unfair conditions. Even if the term "immigrant" were not defined, the well-known object of the Bill would surely justify the use of the word, and the limitations and qualifications could be dealt with at a later stage on the definition clause. If the Amendment were accepted, it would cause the Bill to be applied, to a class for whom it was not primarily intended.
MR. JOHN WILSONsaid that from the point of view of the welfare of the country he would rather
298
take in a poverty-stricken man who came seeking honest employment than a man who meant to float a company and put his skill to nefarious purposes. Why should any class distinction be made? The most dangerous immigrants were frequently those who could pay for first-class passages and who come simply to exploit the country. When he landed in America as a young miner forty-five years ago he had £3; others possibly had £100, but he submitted that he was of the more use to the country because he offered his labour to the first man who would buy it. If the right hon. Gentleman wished the Bill to be acceptable and to have any effect on the moral character of the country, he would have to make it apply to all undesirables. The real gist of the matter was in the definition clause. It made no difference which end of a ship the immigrant came in; if he was an honest man he should be welcomed whether he came steerage or cabin.
MR WHITLEYreferring to the question whether an immigrant might be landed at other than an immigration port, pointed out that Liverpool was not one of the proposed ports.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: Yes, it is.
MR. WHITLEY: Is that in addition to the ports first named?
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASwas understood to say that he had intimated that Liverpool would be included.
MR. WHITLEYsaid that was satisfactory to a certain extent, but it did not touch the general point he was about to raise. Considerable numbers of Swedes and Norwegians habitually went to the United States for two or three years, and then returned home, coming, as a rule, through this country. Under this Bill, if they went to a port at which there was not an immigration officer they would be unable to land, but would have to go round the coast until they came to an immigration port, their only crime being that they had travelled economically in order to have more money to take home, possibly, to their parents. The direct result would be that the whole

299
of that traffic would be driven to the German ships which went round the coast. Then there was the case of the young English workman who went to the United States and became a naturalised American. If he proposed to come home for a three months holiday—as many such did—it was possible that, under the drafting of the Bill, unless he arrived at an immigration port, he would not be allowed to land. Clause 1 was so absurdly drafted that it would do far more harm to the commerce and trade of the country than good to certain localities.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid that both the points raised by the hon. Member had been considered. There was undoubtedly a large traffic in Scandinavians, and he thought he could see his way to meet that point satisfactorily. As to the other case, he was not prepared to say that such men would be undesirable aliens. When the Committee reached the part of the Bill concerned, he would be able to show the hon. Member that such a thing as he had suggested would not be likely to happen.
MR. JOHN WILSONsaid the steerage accommodation was now so much better than it used to be that men with considerable means frequently travelled that way. Numbers of men came over here to spend a few months, and in order to save money travelled steerage. They would all be affected by this Bill.
MR. WHITLEYsaid the right hon. Gentleman had entirely missed his point. It was no good the Home Secretary saying that the men would not be shut out because they were not undesirable aliens. They would not be able to prove their desirability, as they would not be allowed to land.
THE CHAIRMANasked how the hon. Member connected his point with the Amendment.
MR. WHITLEYsaid everything depended on the interpretation of the word "immigrant." The Bill was so drawn that it would apply to the class he had
300
described, and no amount of finesse in definition could get over the fact.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid that if immigrant traffic showed a tendency to develop at a particular port the necessary machinery would be set up. If the machinery was not there the port would be closed to "immigrant ships" but not to aliens arriving in any other ships.
MR. DOBBIEasked the Committee to consider how the shipping interest of Scotland would be affected unless this Amendment were accepted. Leith, the only Scotch port scheduled, was but one of several, and it was not the most important for Continental traffic. Immigrants who now arrived at Dundee or Glasgow, frequently only to pass through Scotland, would be compelled to go to Leith, or be prevented from landing.
THE CHAIRMANsaid the remarks of the hon. Member would be more in order on the Question that Clause 1 stand part, or on Clause 6, but they were not in order on this Amendment.
MR. DOBBIEsaid that unless the Amendment were accepted the object of the Bill as far as Scotland was concerned would be defeated, because there they suffered not from the usual class of immigrant, but from a minor class who came from the Baltic in small numbers, usually not in immigrant ships, and who consequently would not be included under the Bill unless "passenger" were substituted for "immigrant." The rejection of the Amendment would prevent the operation of the clause in the prevention of an admitted evil, and dislocate the trade not only of Leith but also of other Scotch ports.
MR. SEELYthought the best way of dealing with the question was to leave in the word "immigrant" and give it in the definition clause the natural meaning assigned to it in the English language. An immigrant was a man who came to this country with the intention of residing here, and he was no more or no less an immigrant whether

301
he came as a steerage or a cabin passenger. Such a course would meet the difficulties that had been suggested and others that might arise.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 227; Noes, 196. (Division List No. 213.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Lucas, Reginald J(Portsmouth)

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Faber, George Denison (York)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

Fardell, Sir T. George

Macdona, John Cumming

Allsopp, Hon. George

Fellowes, RtHnAilwyn Edward

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ(Manc'r.

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

M'Iver, SirLewis(Edinburgh, W

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. HughO.

Finlay, Sir R. B. I(nv'rn'ssB'ghs)

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Arrol, Sir William

Fisher, William Hayes

Malcolm, Ian

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Manners, Lord Cecil

Aubrey-Fletcher. Rt. Hon. SirH.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Marks, Harry Hannael

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Flower, Sir Ernest

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Forster, Henry William

Maxwell, Rt. Hn Sir HE(Wigt'n

Baird, John George Alexander

Galloway, William Johnson

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire

Balcarres, Lord

Gardner, Ernest

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Garfit, William

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Balfour, Rt. Hn. GeraldW(Leeds

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Milner. Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Milvain, Thomas

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Montagu, G. (Huntingdo)

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Gordon, Maj Evans T'rH'mlets

Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Morgan, David J(Walthamstow

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir MichaelHicks

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Morpeth, Viscount

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Morrell, George Herbert

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Morton, Arthur, H. Aylmer

Bingham Lord

Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

Mount, William Arthur

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Boulnois, Edmund

Hain, Edward

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn

Halsey, Rt. Hn. Thomas F.

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Brassey, Albert

Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'nderry

Myers, William Henry

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

Nicholson, William Graham

Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

Hare, Thomas Leigh

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Brymer, William Ernest

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

Ball, William James

Heath, Sir J. (Staffords. N. W.

Peel, Hn. Wm. RobertWellesley

Butcher, John George

Heaton, John Henniker

Pemberton, John S. G.

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

Helder, Augustus

Percy, Earl

Campbell, J. H. M. (DublinUniv.

Henderson, Sir A (Stafford, W.)

Pierpont, Robert

Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hogg, Lindsay

Purvis, Robert

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. JA. (Worc.

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Rankin, Sir James

Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Chapman, Edward

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Ratcliff, R. F.

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Remnant, James Farquharson

Coates, Edward Feetham

Hunt, Rowland

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Renwick, George

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

Ridley, S. Forde

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Kimber, Sir Henry

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th

Rutherford, John (Lancashire

Davenport, William Bromley

Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Lee, ArthurH. (Hants, Fareham

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Denny, Colonel

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Samuel, Sir HarryS(Limehouse

Dickson, Charles Scott

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles)

Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.

Doughty, Sir George

Long, Rt Hn Walter(Bristol, S.

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Douglas, Rt. Hn. A Akers-

Lowe, Francis William

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Shaw-Stewart, Sir H (Renfrew)

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.)

Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tynesde

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Smith, Rt HnJ Parker(Lanarks

Tollemache, Henry James

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Spear, John Ward

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Wylie, Alexander

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

Vincent, ColSir C. E. H. (Sheffield

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

Walrond. Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Younger, William

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Welby, Lt. Col. A CE (Taunton)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

Stock, James Henry

Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Talbot, Rt Hn JG(Oxford Univ.

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Mooney, John J.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Flynn, James Christopher

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Allen, Charles P.

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Moulton, John Fletcher

Asher, Alexander

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Muldoon, John

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

Murnaghan, George

Atherley-Jones, L.

Gilhooly, James

Murphy, John

Barlow, John Emmott

Gladstone, Rt HnHerbert John

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Nolan, Col. John P (Galway. N.)

Black, Alexander William

Grant, Corrie

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Blake, Edward

Grey, Rt Hn. Sir E. (Berwick)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Boland, John

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Brigg, John

Hammond, John

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.

Bright, Allan Heywood

Harcourt, Lewis

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Burt, Thomas

Harrington, Timothy

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Buxton, Sydney Chas. (Poplar)

Harwood, George

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Caldwell, James

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Cameron, Robert

Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

O'Dowd, John

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Causton, Richard Knight

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

O'Malley, William

Cawley, Frederick

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

O'Mara, James

Channing, Francis Allston

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Jocoby, James Alfred

Parrott, William

Cogan, Denis J.

Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

Partington, Oswald

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Paulton, James Mellor

Crean, Eugene

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Cremer, William Randal

Jordan, Jeremiah

Pirie, Duncan V.

Crombie, John William

Joyce, Michael

Power, Patrick Joseph

Cullinan, J.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Price, Robert John

Dalziel, James Henry

Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N)

Reddy, M.

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardig n

Kilbride, Denis

Richards, Thomas

Delany, William

Kitson, Sir James

Rickett, J. Compton

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Lambert, George

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Lamont, Norman

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Langley, Batty

Roche, John

Dobbie, Joseph

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Donelan, Captain A.

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Russell, T. W.

Doogan, P. C.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland))

Duffy, William J

Leese, Sir Joseph F(Accrington

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Duncan, J. Hastings

Leng, Sir John

Schawann, Charles E.

Edwards, Frank

Levy, Maurice

Seely, Maj. J. EB (Isle of Wight

Ellice, Capt. E C(SAndrw's Bghs

Lewis, John Herbert

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

Lough, Thomas

Sheehy, David

Emmott, Alfred

Lundon, W.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Evans, Sir Francis H(Maidstone

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire),

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Slack, John Bamford

Farrell, James Patrick

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Fenwick, Charles

M'Crae, George

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Soares, Ernest J.

Ffrench, Peter

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Spencer, Rt Hn C R (Northant

Field, William

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Findlay, Alexander(Lanark, NE

Markham, Arthur Basil

Strachey, Sir Edward

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

Sullivan, Donal

304

305

Taylor, Theodore C (Radcliffe)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Tennant, Harold John

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

White, George (Norfolk)

Wood, James

Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Woodhouse, Sir JT(Huddersf'd

Tomkinson, James

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Young, Samuel

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Yoxall, James Henry

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Wallace, Robert

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Churchill and Mr. Runciman.

Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.)

Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Wilson, Chas, Henry (Hull, W.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Wilson, Henry J. (York. W. R.

THE CHAIRMAN: I call upon the hon. Member for West Islington to move his second Amendment.
MR. LOUGHasked if his first Amendment was out of order.
THE CHAIRMAN: It is not in order here, and it should come on Clause 8.
MR. LOUGHsaid they had been told that "immigrant" included "transmigrant."
THE CHAIRMAN: It will be open to the hon. Member to move his solution of the difficulty on that part of the Bill.
MR. WHITLEYsaid that, owing to what occurred a few moments ago, it was necessary that an Amendment should be put in after "immigrant" to protect the case of the British-born workman returning to visit his family. There was also the case of the Irishman who emigrated to the States, naturalised himself there, and then came home to revisit his relatives.
THE CHAIRMAN: There is no Question before the Committee.
MR. WHITLEYsaid he would move to insert after the word "immigrant" the words "not being a British-born subject." This was a matter which affected a large number of persons.
THE CHAIRMAN: This is a Bill to amend the law with regard to aliens. I do not think any Amendment dealing with British-born subjects would be in order.
MR. WHITLEYsaid that if they could be assured that a person who had been naturalised in the United States, although born in this country, was not an alien,
306
then it covered the ground. It was possible in such a case that a person would be refused a landing at Queenstown and be obliged to go to Liverpool, and it should be observed that this only applied to steerage passengers. He would move to add after the word "immigrant" the words "if he has not been born in the United Kingdom."
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid he thought any restriction upon the word "immigrant" should be made in Clause 8. To insert such Amendments now might lead to serious confusion.
THE CHAIRMAN: It would not be in order to insert this Amendment here and it will more properly come in on Clause 8.
MR. CHURCHILLsaid he understood that the hon. Member for Halifax had been allowed to move his Amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: No; that is not so
MR. LOUGH MR. LOUGH moved to leave out from the word "not" in line 6 and to insert the word "only." The Amendment superficially appeared small, but it really involved a large question. The thing he feared about the Bill was the damage it would do to British trade. The Bill was constructed on the idea that once a great passenger shin arrived at a port there might be established on board a police Court, and lunatics or diseased people might be kept on board, The profit of a ship depended on having the ship rapidly cleared. When in New York he paid some attention to the working of a law for the exclusion of undesirable aliens, and he found that the greatest pains were taken to avoid delays to shipping. He noticed that

307
there was not the slightest difficulty in getting the great liners cleared of the immigrants on beard as well as the cabin passengers. An hour after it was cleared the ship was being cleaned, and arrangements were being made for the next voyage. This Bill was drafted without the most elementary knowledge of the requirements of seafaring. Every obstacle was placed in the way of getting passengers landed. If any immigrant was dissatisfied with the decision of the immigration officer, he could take his case to a Court of Appeal on the same afternoon or next day, and that would mean delaying the ship. The profit often depended, on the number of voyages that could be made within a certain time. Great advantage would be given to our rivals in the shipping trade if the arrangements in the Bill were persisted in. The Home Secretary knew all about this point, for he had been worried a great deal about it during the last month or two. It was because of the difficulty on this point that they were so late in getting the Bill into Committee. Was it not a reasonable thing to consider the dangers and difficulties that would be involved if the present framing of the Bill was retained? If they adopted the principle of the Bill they must go the whole way and set up suitable asylums to which immigrants could be brought. If there were lunatics on board a staff would have to be kept up to guard them as they might set fire to the ship in the night. The Home Secretary had partly conceded this point and had given notice of an Amendment to be moved later on. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to go further and to allow the immigrants to be landed and suitably accommodated at the port in a place approved by the Board of Trade.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 6, to leave out the word 'not,' and insert the word 'only.'"—(Mr. Lough.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'not' stand part of the Clause."
MR. AKEKS-DOUGLASsaid he understood that the hon. Gentleman desired that the whole of the examination should
308
take place at the port, of landing after the ship had arrived. The question of examination had been carefully considered. They were agreed that the process must be as speedy as possible. It was for the advantage of the aliens, the shipowners, and the country that the decision should be come to as early as possible, and the Government thought that in many cases, where there were few aliens on board, the immigration officer could do the work perfectly well on board. It was perfectly true that a hard-and-fast rule could not be made for every port. There were ports, such as the port of London, where it would be possible when a ship was coming up the Thames for the immigration officer to go on board at Gravesend and do his work coming up. It would be the desire of shipowners that this alternative should be allowed. There was an objection to the hon. Member's Amendment from the point of view of those who supported the Bill. They were not prepared to allow the alien to pass from the control of the ship-owner until the decision was given. This was very important from their point of view, and although they were prepared to have the examination on board ship or on landing at the port as might be thought best in the circumstances of the case, they were not prepared to allow the responsiblity of the shipowner to cease from the moment he was disembarked. He was glad to say that shipowners accepted the view that they must retain responsibility, and that they must see that premises were available for the immigrants on landing. There were many ports—London, Liverpool, and others—where there was no reason why the examination should not take place on land. Disembarkation for that purpose would not, technically speaking, be a landing. He was not prepared to make the concession which the hon. Member for Islington desired. It was quite impossible, as he had pointed out before, that all the ports would agree on any common practice.
MR. GUESTsaid he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that in no case could a ship be considered cleared until all the immigrants had passed the examining officer. His

309
reason for saying that was that he could not allow the shipowner to escape the responsibility of taking the undesirable alien back again. The Bill provided that in the event of any alien becoming a member of the criminal class within six months after landing in the country he might be exported at the expense of the shipowner. He did not see, therefore, why the right hon. Gentleman should not accept the Amendment.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid facilities might be given to shipowners to get rid as soon as possible of the obligations imposed on them by the Bill. He did not quite follow his right hon; friend in his statement that the shipowners were to accept full responsibility for those undesirable aliens who were to be conditionally disembarked; still less could he accept the point raised by the hon. Member for Plymouth that that condition should extend for six months. These, however, were points which could be debated later on. It would be quite impossible for shipowners to take on liability for six months residence in the country where those persons had been allowed to enter by the legal immigration officer. In these circumstances, he insisted that the responsibility was with the country and not with the shipowners.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that this was one of the most important clauses in the working of the Bill. It related to a point which, in the experience of the United States and Canada, had caused the greatest difficulty and had been the subject of the amendment of their legislation during the past twenty years. There was no doubt whatever that it would be found in practice that in every one of the important ports in England where immigrants were landed it would be absolutely necessary to have suitable places on shore for the purpose of detention and inquiry. Again, vessels were constantly arriving at these ports with immigrants on board who were ill; and it frequently happened that the children were ill when the parents or guardians were not. These had also to be taken care of while the sick children were being attended to. That was a most important and difficult matter in the United
310
States and in Canada. There from 7 to 8 per cent. of all immigrants required to be detained for examination or for inquiry for some special reason. In the meantime all sorts of restrictions, such as bonds, were placed on the vessels. He found that in the United States they started in precisely the same sort of way as was now proposed in this Bill before the House—viz., without any provision for shore depots for detention; aid they were forced by the circumstances of the case to provide such places at very great expense. It was the same in Canada. It had been found absolutely impossible to examine the immigrants on board ship, to determine whether they were suffering from all or any of the diseases enumerated in the schedule, such as lameness, rickets, swollen glands, defects of speech, disease of the bones, etc. He had the Report for last year of the Immigration Office in Canada, in which it was pointed out that, by the force of circumstances, they had been compelled to go to great expense in providing machinery to carry out the immigration law on shore rather than on shipboard. He would point out that very large number of the people we should have to deal with in this country would be transmigrants. In Canada they had last year to deal with 30,374 transmigrants who were on their way to the United States. It was necessary that if a Bill of this kind was to be of the slightest use it should be effective. Of course, it was desirable that we should be able to shut out from this country the riff-raff of immigrants; but we must take them as they came. A large proportion of them would be good and a small proportion bad. But in the case of transmigrants the good would go on to America, while the bad would be left here. He hoped the Committee would reject this Amendment, which would not touch the question at all, and that the Amendment of his right hon. friend would, be accepted, which provided for all that was required for the purposes of "inspection and inquiry."
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON, who was indistinctly heard, was understood to say that all that was wanted was to clear the ships as quickly as possible. He believed that it

311
was quite exceptional in America to have places of reception and examination for immigrants. He thought that the hon. Member who had just spoken was under a misapprehension in regard to the effect of the proposed amended clause which would impose additional liability on shipowners, because, while the immigrants were on shore the ship could be cleared, and the officers would be freed from the liability of looking after the immigrants. Under the circumstances, he should support the Amendment of his hon. friend rather than that of the Home Secretary as more likely to obtain what was desired.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid a vessel carrying immigrants was only a few hours in port and they often carried 600 or 700 passengers on board. The truth was that the passengers were so closely packed together that there were no means whatever for all of them to be examined singly by the immigration agent or the medical officer. If there was to be a place on shore for the examination of the passengers, as, for instance, at Newhaven, were these facilities to be provided at the expense of the shipowners or of the State?
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid that all he wanted was that the paseengers should be examined either on board ship or on shore. He certainly did not intend that the shelters or depôts—[An HON. MEMBER on the IRISH Benches: Or compounds]—should be provided at the expense of the State. Several hon. Members had called attention to the practice which prevailed in America; but there was a very considerable difference between the nature of the traffic there and here. In America the immigrants only went to three or four ports. A great deal was to be said for the provision suggested by the hon. Member behind him, but if they were to deal with a number of ports in this country they must have more elasticity. Therefore, it might be necessary to make different regulations for the Eastern ports and the Western ports. In the Thames and the Tyne, though he did not know so much of the latter as of the former, and in nearly all the other east coast ports, arrangements might be made by
312
the shipping companies or the harbour authorities for the examination to take place on the shore. He admitted that that would add to the expense, but he did not think that that extra expense should be borne by the State.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid he quite understood what the intention of the right hon. Gentleman was, and he was glad that they had elicited from the right hon. Gentleman the very important fact that if shipowners were to avoid the detention of their vessels—a totally impossible proceeding—they would have to provide, at their own expense, accommodation for the examination of these passengers on shore. Some ports would be more expensive than others as regarded wharfage and warehouses, and in certain ports it would be impossible to get extra accommodation. Persons engaged in this industry would be let in for a new liability, which it could not well bear. He would say nothing about the inconvenience to the passenger; but if the examination were to take place on the Thames or the Tyne in winter he did not envy the passenger. It showed how little the proposals of the measure had been thought out.
MR. CHURCHILLsaid it was quite clear that the Home Secretary contemplated a double system. Some passengers were to be inspected at sea and others in compounds on land. Both systems, however, would impose a burden on the shipping trade. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman to what comparative extent each system was to be used, and, also, by what means he would be able to compel shipping companies to provide accommodation on shore.
MR. CHARLES McARTHURsaid he thought the Amendment was uncalled for.
MR. LOUGHsaid that the Bill was built on the idea to prevent landing. He wanted to alter that, and to allow landing, so that there should be no interference with the shipping trade.
MR. CHARLES McARTHURsaid he saw no difference between the words in

313
the Bill and the words in the Amendment. In any event, the proper time to deal with the matter was on a subsequent Amendment. He knew something of the feeling of the shipowners, and he believed they were quite satisfied with the proposal of the Home Secretary.
MR. CHURCHILLasked the Home Secretary to what extent it was proposed to have recourse to special examination on shore, and at what ports.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid that there were no partic lar ports to which they tied themselves. There was nothing to present any one of the ports mentioned being replaced by another, or the list being increased or diminished. He was not prepared to say at which ports it was proposed to establish these depots. He wanted it to be at the option of the shipowner. If the latter thought it better to have the examination on the quay, then it certainly would take place there, and vice versa. It was quite possible in the same port they might have examination of persons brought by one line of steamers on land, and of those brought by another, on board. The examination at present was conducted by an extremely able staff, and many shipowners preferred that it should take place at sea, and not wait until the ship was alongside. Surely It was better to give the shipowners the option.
MR. STUART SAMUELasked if it would not be more convenient to take his Amendment now.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid the debate showed the utter impracticability of the "whole scheme. He wondered whether the hon. Members representing Liverpool considered the vast numbers of passengers who were being landed at Liverpool and who had to be got off these ships. They all knew the state of congestion that already existed in Liverpool. In his view, the right hon. Gentleman had suggested something it was impossible to carry into effect. He did not understand how they were going to deal with this traffic. It might be possible for officers to go on board at
314
Kingstown and other places and examine numbers of these immigrants, but they could not examine them all, and to examine them on these shores would entail a large charge on Liverpool. Who was to provide these shelters or concentration camps? The corporation of Liverpool, the Government, or the shipowners? The right hon. Gentleman said the shipowners were, but would not that put an intolerable burden upon the shipowners? The whole thing showed the morass through which the right hon. Gentleman was plodding his way and from which he apparently did not know how to extricate himself. The Bill had not been thought out in its working; the details had not been considered, and for his part he did not see how it was to be carried out.
MR. EMMOTTasked what the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do with the shipowners. The right hon. Gentleman had indicated that he intended to make them build these shelters or compounds, or whatever they might be called, but he took no powers in his Bill to do so. The inference was that he would bully them into building shelters by making them wait ever so long before their ships could be cleared. That was not an English way of doing things. The whole of this immigration bogey was a very small thing, in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman said, and because of this small matter he proposed to interfere with the transmigrant trade of this country, worth many millions per annum. All the foreign agents were now pointing out the difficulties that would be put in the way of these transmigrants in England in the future as a reason why they should ship direct to foreign countries. Having sat through this discussion he was convinced, as everybody who had listened to the debate must be convinced, that the Government, in regard to this matter, was taking a very serious step which, if persisted in, was going to bring those interested in shipping into immense difficulties. He asked that this stage of the Bill should be further postponed.
MR. MARTIN (Worcestershire,)was understood to say that he thought a great deal too much had been

315
made by certain Members of the examination to which it was proposed to subject ah en immigrants. A medical man could easily pass a number of these people in a very few moments. Perhaps fifty of those arriving by a particular ship would not require looking at, and others would need only a very casual inspection. In regard to the inspection chamber—which he thought a proper word to employ—all that was needed was a very small shed, with a doctor's cell attached, and it would not cost £50 to build one.
MR. RUNCIMANasked whether the depots were to be put up at the cost of the shipowners, and if that was not the fact at whose cost were they to be put up.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid that, in nearly every case, in the great ports of this country to which these ships came these places already existed, and they could be used without expense. The Government did not intend to bear the cost of erecting buildings. He had said over and over again that any buildings erected would not be at the public, cost, and that if it were at the cost of anybody it would be at the cost of the shipowners who engaged in this trade, and who therefore must bear the expenditure.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid, then, it was the fact that these depots were to be erected at the cost of the shipowners.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: Where necessary.
MR. RUNCIMAN: Where necessary. The hon. Gentleman opposite said that was a paltry matter, but if he knew anything about the value of real property he would know that the purchase of riverside property was not a paltry matter. And in regard to the manner in which passengers are to be examined under this Act that was not so easy a matter as the hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine They were going to be examined to see not so much whether they were suffering from disease, but whether they were lunatics or idiots, and he could assure the hon. Gentleman that that was sometimes a very difficult matter. Not only were immigrants to be examined as to their physical and mental state, but also as to the
316
extent of their finances, and when a man was endeavouring to get into this country with very little money in his pocket, and it was probably the sole outlet he had for his energy and his hope for the future, he would not be too ready to facilitate the operations of the inspecting officer. Every step in that examination would lead to delay, and delay to those engaged in shipping was by no means a paltry matter. The demurrage on some of the vessels engaged in that trade might be anything up to £500 a day. The shippers engaged in the trade would be very wise to consider the regulations which the Home Secretary had outlined very roughly and see whether they were not laying upon themselves a burden which would be a most serious obstacle to the successful conduct of their business.
MR. RENWICKdesired to say a word as a shipowner and as representing the short-sea traders of London, who carried practically 50 per cent, of the trade of the Port of London. They approved of the objects of the Bill, but differed with respect to some of its provisions. He frankly admitted that shipowners would prefer to see the examination carried out on shore, and if the Home Secretary was prepared to grant the option—as he understood him to be—of having the examination on shore, many of the difficulties would disappear. The moment the Bill became law every shipowner who carried passengers would exercise care to prevent undesirables coming in, and the different agents abroad would receive instructions to do the same. The Bill already provided, he believed, that where the examination had been satisfactorily made abroad it would be accepted here as sufficient. There would be no difficulty in passing the desirable or healthy immigrant. Moreover, so far as London was concerned, nearly the whole of the so-called immigrant traffic was carried by foreign ships, and that was doubtless the reason hon. Members opposite were so anxious to secure all these safeguards; they always desired to protect the foreigner. The Committee need not fear to accept the assurance of the Home Secretary that every facility would be given for the examination to be carried out on shore.
Sir CHAELES DILKEwas surprised that the hon. Member for Newcastle should have backed up the amazing statement of the hon. Member beside him as to the rate at which these examinations would take place. How anybody could suppose that 400 immigrants could be examined in an hour, and the necessary information obtained as to their character and health, he could not conceive, and hon. Members who made such statements could not have considered the nature of the questions to be put.
MAJOR EVANS GORDONsaid the primary object of the speeches of the Opposition was obviously to stir up the animosity of shipowners against the measure. Speaking as one who had gone carefully into the matter, especially as it affected London, he could assure the Committee that the traffic was mainly carried in foreign bottoms.
MR. EMMOTT: Have you figures to support that statement?
MAJOR EVANS GORDON: Yes.
MR. EMMOTT: Are there any official figures?
MAJOR EVANS GORDONsaid that if the hon. Member so desired he could see the lists sent by the Customs officials to the Board of Trade, giving the names of the ships, the owners, the passengers carried, and the destination, and he would see that nearly the whole were foreign ships. As to the examination, wholly imaginary difficulties had been set up. It should not be forgotten that inspection was carried on at present by a medical officer and a Customs officer. He had been present at those examinations, and hon. Members would be surprised at the amount of information that was obtained.
DR. HUTCHINSON: How long does the examination take?
MAJOR EVANS GORDONsaid the time available varied according to the tide. The ships were boarded at Gravesend, and with a favourable tide the time
318
available would be less than if the tide were unfavourable. The present staff would, of course, have to be increased after the passage of this Bill. When the examination officer was unable to board the ship at Gravesend he followed by train to the dock, and, although there was no legal obligation upon them, the shipowners invariably retained their passengers on board until they had been examined by the officer. If shipowners did that without any legal obligation could anybody believe the difficulties suggested by hon. Members opposite would arise? The objections were wholly illusory, and, as he had said, were put forward to stir up the opposition of Unionist shipowners. Then as to the medical examination. He had been on one of these ships where a close medical examination took place, and the passengers offered no objection whatever. A cabin was placed at their disposal, and a sufficiently close examination was made to show which of the passengers was suffering from any serious disease. He had been on board a ship upon which there were eighty-five immigrants and three medical officers examined them thoroughly within an hour while the ship was coming up from Gravesend to the dock. All the objections made by hon. Members opposite were wholly illusory, and he believed that they were put forward with the sole object of stirring up shipowners on the Unionist Benches against the Bill. He had placed at the disposal of the Committee such knowledge as he had been able to acquire upon this subject, and he trusted that what he had said would set at rest any doubts as to the practicability of this proposal.
DR. HUTCHINSONsaid that the statement they had just listened to was one of the most extraordinary medical histories it had been his lot to hear. Here were eighty-five people examined thoroughly with stethoscopes in sixty minutes, which gave three-quarters of a minute to each patient, and they were asked to believe that this was the sort of examination which completely eliminated any man with disease. Anyone who knew the mere A B C of this question must know that thoroughly to examine anybody needed a quarter of an

319
hour or twenty minutes, and even then it was a perfunctory examination. He had examined some of these immigrants three or four weeks ago, and when an hon. and gallant Member told him that three doctors examined eighty five people in an hour—
MAJOR EVANS GORDONsaid on this occasion they boarded this ship and examined the immigrants. They boarded every ship that carried immigrants.
DR. HUTCHINSONsaid that showed it was a show case. They heard the hon. and gallant Member was coming and three medical men put their stethoscopes in their pockets and boarded this ship. This was the sort of picture put before the House to make them think the same kind of thing was going on every day. The true facts of the case had not been brought before them, and he hoped, when the question of these diseased immigrants was raised, he might have a iew words to say which would not be so melodramatic as those of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
MR. LOUGHsaid the hon. and gallant Member had not touched the Amendment at all. The object of his Amendment was to secure that there should be no difficulty imposed in the way of clearing the ship when she came to the dock. Some hon. Members opposite said that they agreed in principle with his Amendment, but in their opinion it was brought in at the wrong place. In case one or two of the eighty-five immigrants alluded to by the hon. Member opposite had been condemned they would not have been detained upon the ship. Therefore, accommodation ought to be provided on shore so that the ship might be cleared and these people might be run into the compound or hospital on shore. He did not think it was fair to charge them with pursuing merely Party tactics because they were trying to improve the Bill. If the Committee accepted this new principle it ought to be done in such a way as would not interfere in any way with the carrying on of the shipping industry. He did not think that a single word had
320
been said against the principle of his Amendment.
MAJOR EVANS GORDONsaid that in the case he had mentioned there was one doctor and two medical officers of the Port of London on board. He did not think there was anything very unusual in the fact that they had such a thing as a stethoscope in their pockets.
LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid that there was a most essential distinction between an examination conducted for the special purpose of enforcing an Act of Parliament and an examination of a more or less amateurish character. An examination of the former character involved considerable legal consequences, and therefore each person should have the full right to have his case gone into in a thorough manner. The argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman was absolutely worth-less.
MR. CHURCHILLsaid that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Stepney was a great authority on this subject, but the hon. Member for Liverpool, who was also a great authority on the subject, took an entirely different view from him of the importance of the examination and of the place necessary for carrying on the examination. The hon. Member for Liverpool was perfectly clear in his statement that an elaborate establishment for carrying on the examination of the aliens who came here would be required, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman said that the whole thing could be done while the ship was coming up the river. Might he point out that there were some ports in this country where there would be no convenient facilities for the medical officers going on board. He would like to point out to the Committee that where a ship had landed any immigrant because he had appealed against the decision of the examiner or was ill, and so was left behind, he would have to be accommodated somewhere. He could not be accommodated on the open quay. He might have to wait several nights pending a final decision of his case, and decent accommodation ought to be provided. He

321
asked the Home Secretary whether that sleeping accommodation was to be provided at the cost of the shipping companies or not. He did most seriously point out that the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite had not in any way minimised the substantial point raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool that an establishment of an elaborate character for examinations would have to be erected, together with facilities for sleeping. He had only one other point to make. The hon. Member for the Droitwich Division made a remark which called forth some protest. He used the expression "inspection
chamber" for, said the hon. Member, that was an expression commonly used in reward to sewage, and he thought that it was an appropriate expression to apply to aliens. It should never be forgotten, however, that although those persons who came to our shores might be poor, diseased, or insane, nevertheless they were human beings; and he was quite sure that the use of such improper language was to be deprecated.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 220 Noes, 171. (Division List No. 214.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas.

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Corbett, A Cameron (Glasgow)

Hogg, Lindsay

Allaopp, Hon. George

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield Brightside

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Arnold-Forster, RtHn Hugh O.

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Hunt, Rowland

Arrol, Sir William

Cust, Henry John C.

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Davenport, William Bromley

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Aubrey-Fletcher. Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Denny, Colonel

Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Dickson, Charles Scott

Kennaway, Rt Hn. Sir John H.

Baird, John George Alexander

Dixon-Hartland, Sir FredDixon

Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

Balcarres, Lord

Dorington, Rt Hn. Sir John E.

Keswick, William

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

Balfour, RtHnGerald W. (Leeds

Dyke. Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Lawrence. Sir Joseph (Monm'th

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Lawson, Hn K L W. (Mile End)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W)

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants. Fareham

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Fellowes. RtHnAilwyn Edward

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Fergusson. Rt Hn Sir J. (Manc'r.

Leveson-Gower, Frederick NS

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir MichaelHicks

Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs

Long. Col. CharlesW. (Evesham

Bintinck, Lord Henry C.

Fisher, William Hayes

Long. Rt Hn Walter(Bristol, S.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Lowe, Francis William

Bingham, Lord

Flower, Sir Ernest

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Forster, Henry William

Lucas, Reginald J(Portsm'th

Bond, Edward

Galloway, William Johnson

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Boulnois, Edmund

Gardner, Ernest

Macdona, John Cumming

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Garfit, William

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Brassey, Albert

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Brodrick, Rt Hon. St. John

Godson. Sir Augustus Frederick

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Brymer, William Ernest

Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)

M'Iver. Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Bull, William James

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Campbell, Rt Hn JA(Glasgow)

Gordon, Maj. Evans(T'r. H'mlets

Malcolm, Ian

Campbell, JHM (Dublin Univ.

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Marks, Harry Hananel

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Graham, Henry Robert

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

Maxwell Rt Hn Sir H E (Wigt'n

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.

Maxwell, W J H(Dumfriesshire

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'nderry

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc.

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

Milner. Rt Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Milvain, Thomas

Chapman, Edward

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

Coates, Edward Feetham

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Heath, Sir James(Staffords. NW

Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Heaton, John Henniker

Morgan. David J (Walthamstow

Colomb. Rt Hon. Sir John C. R.

Helder, Augustus

Morrell, George Herbert

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole.

Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Mount, William Arthur

Royds, Clement Molyneux.

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Rutherford, John (Lincashire)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Tumour, Viscount

Myers, William Henry

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Vincent, Col Sir CEH (Sheffield

Nicholson, William Graham

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Walker, Col. William Hall

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

Walrond, Rt HnSir William H.

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Peel, Hn. Wm RobertWellesley

Shaw-Stewart. Sir H. (Renfrew)

Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE (Taunton

Percy, Earl

Smith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Smith, Rt Hn J Parker(Lanarks

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Wilson A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Spear, John Ward

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Pryce-Jones, Lt. (Col. Edward

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Wilson-Todd, Sir W H (Yorks.)

Purvis, Robert

Stanley, EdwardJas (Somerset

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Rankin, Sir James

Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Rasch, Sir Frederic Came

Stewart, Sir Mark J M'Taggart

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Ratcliff, R. F.

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Wylie, Alexander

Remnant, James Farquharson

Stock, James Henry

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Renwick, George

Talbot, Lord E. (Caichester)

Younger, William

Ridley, S. Forde

Talbot, Rt. Hn J G (Ox 'd Univ.

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia,

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Thornton, Percy M.

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Farrell, James Patrick

Lewis, John Herbert

Allen, Charles P.

Fenwick, Charles

Lundon, W.

Barlow, John Emmott

Ffrench, Peter

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Field, William

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Back, Alexander William

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Blake Edward

Flavin, Michael Joseph

M'Crae, George

Boland, John

Flynn, James Christopher

M'Kenna, Reginald

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Fuller, J. M. F.

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Brigg, John

Gilhooly, James

Mansfield, Horace Rendal

Bright, Allan Heywood

Gladstone, RtHnHerbert John

Markham, Arthur Basil

Broadhurst, Henry

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Mooney, John J.

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.

Murnaghan, George

Burt, Thomas

Hammond, John

Murphy, John

Buxton, Sydney Chas. (Poplar)

Harcourt, Lewis

Nannetti Joseph P.

Caldwell, James

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N)

Cameron, Robert

Harrington, Timothy

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Hayden, John Patrick

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Causton, Richard Knight

Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Channing, Francis Allston

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Hemphill. Rt. Hn. Charles H

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Henderson, Arthur (Durham.

O'Connor. James (Wick ow, W.

Cogan, Denis J.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

O'Connor, John, (Kildare, N.)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Crean, Eugene

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Cremer, William Randal

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

O'Dowd, John

Crombie, John William

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Cullinan, J.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

O'Kelly. James (Roscommon

Delany, William

Jordan, Jeremiah

O'Malley, William N

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Joyce, Michael

O'Mara, James

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Kearley, Hudson E.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N.

Parrott, William

Dobbie, Joseph

Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

Partington, Oswald

Donelan, Captain A.

Kilbride, Denis

Paulton, James Mellor

Doogan, PC.

Lambert, George

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Lamont, Norman

Power, Patrick Joseph

Duffy, William J.

Langley, Batty

Priestley, Arthur

Duncan, J. Hastings

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

Reddy, M.

Edwards, Frank

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Richards, Thomas

Emmott, Alfred

Levy, Maurice

Rickett, J. Compton

324

325

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Soares, Ernest J.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Roche, John

Spencer, Rt Hn CR (Northants

White, Patrick (Meath North)

Rose, Charles Day

Stanhope, Hn. Philip James

Whiteley, J. H. (Halifax)

Runciman, Walter

Sullivan, Donal

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Russell, T. W.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radclifte)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Tennant, Harold John

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Samuel S. M. (Whitechapel)

Tomkinson, James

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Wood, James

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Ure, Alexander

Young, Samuel

Sheehy, David

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Yoxall, James Henry

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wallace, Robert

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Lough and Mr. Eugene Walson

Slack, John Bamford

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Weir, James Galloway

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

White George (Norfolk)

And, it being after half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  RATHMINES AND RATHGAR EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT BILL (BY ORDER).
  [THIRD READING.]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. MOONEYsaid the Bill, if it passed, would throw an onerous burden on a body of ratepayers who had no idea in giving their sanction to it of the liability with which they were saddling themselves. The full weight of the Government majority had been exerted to carry the Second Reading, and on that occasion he had heard the greatest collection of inaccurate and misleading statements that could have been made. He not only still held the objections he had expressed in the first instance on the question of extension, but the additions which had been made in Committee gave rise to further objections. Every single allegation which had been made by the Attorney-General with regard to the Bill and with regard to the District Council of Terenure being taken in by the Rathmines Council had been proved absolutely inaccurate. The right hon. Gentleman
  326
  had stated, amongst other things, that the district had no water of its own, no lighting, and no outlet for is sewage. It was proved before the Committee that the district had an advantageous contract with the water authority, the Dublin Corporation, by which it was able to supply Terenure with water at a cheaper price than it could get it under the new Bill. It was also proved that the lighting was quite sufficient for the wants of the district. The right hon. Gentleman also stated that the district was not able to carry off its sewage and were infringing the rights of the Rathmines authority but he forgot to state that Rathmines opposed the using of their sewers on the extraordinary ground that they were not able to carry off all their own sewage, let alone that of the Terenure district.
  The Bill had been promoted by Rathmines and Pembroke against the will of the majority of the people, and Pembroke had since discovered that under a clause to which they had never agreed, and on which they had not been consulted, they were to be saddled at the end of five years with a capital expenditure of £110,000, at the lowest estimate, for the establishment of a main-drainage board and drainage stations. Further, he had this objection: in 1900, when the Dublin Corporation brought their Bill before the House, the matter was considered by a Joint Committee of both Houses, which reported unanimously that it would be to the public advantage if there were one administration to control the drainage, and they recommended a joint drainage board for the city, and for Rathmines and Pembroke. Notwithstanding this Report, however, the Bill proposed to set aside that recommendation altogether

  327
  and it allowed Rathmines for five years to destroy all the work and all the money that had been expended by the citizens of Dublin in purifying the Liffey, by allowing them to discharge sewage into Dublin Bay. He submitted that the Bill was obtained by misrepresentation, and the Second Reading was allowed through the misleading statements of the Attorney-General; and, that being so, and for the reasons he had given, he moved that the Bill be read a third time that day three months.
  MR. FIELDsaid he seconded the Motion of his hon. friend the Member for South Dublin. The Attorney-General, who was acquainted with the whole of the phases of the Local Government Act, must be aware of the fact that at the present moment there was a great difficulty existing with regard to the disposal of sewage, about which some legislation would have to be passed. On broad principles he was opposed to this Bill. The corporation of Dublin, of which he was a member, opposed it, and the Dublin County Council strongly opposed it. When it was before the Committee the witnesses of the Dublin County Council were not heard, but were dismissed in the most summary manner. The Port and Docks Board, of which he was a member, also opposed it. He was quite aware that an agreement had now been come to which would satisfy the Port and Docks Board, bat it was exceedingly doubtful whether that agreement could ever be carried out, involving as it did considerable expense and technical difficulties which it was almost impossible to overcome. The majority of the inhabitants of the districts interested were entirelv opposed to it.
  He was strongly of opinion that the Second Reading of this Bill had been obtained by an infraction of the rules which were supposed to govern the passing of Bills of this description, which were not of a political nature. He had always understood that the Government did not interfere in any way in the passage of such Bills, but the Attorney-General had made this a Party question pure and simple, because he said in his speech it was best to ask the House to decide between the parties, and that the only
  328
  intervention he made on behalf of the Government was to siy that in the present stage of the controversy this was a matter which should go to a tribunal which would investigate the matter and hear the opinion of all the local bodies. In consequence of that statement by the Attorney-General the normal majority of the Conservatives in the House was represented in the division that took place. He was informed also that a. special whip was sent out in order to carry the Second Reading of the Bill and the position now, so far as he could see, was that this House presumed to dictate to the majority of the inhabitants of these districts the course that should be taken. On behalf of the Dublin County Council he protested in the strongest possible manner against the way in which this Bill had been engineered, and submitted that it was not expedient for this House to pass this Bill against the expressed wish of the rural district council, which opposed the Bill when it was in Committee, and which also opposed its Third Reading. If this Bill passed it would take away a very large and important area from the jurisdiction of the county council.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"—(Mr. Mooney.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. GORDONsaid the district proposed to be incorporated, had time after time appealed to the rural district council and the board of guardians to provide a sewage system, water and light, and look after their streets, but had appealed in vain. They did at length get some supply of water from the Corporation of Dublin and Rathmines, but, as to sewage, the state of affairs was such that the peopla had to take the law into their own hands and join their sewers with those of the Rathmines and Pembroke Board without its consent. The board obtained an injunction, but they never put it into force. The people failed to get any relief from the rural district council, and ultimately came to the Rathmines District Council, who, realising the danger to

  329
  them selves, undertook to construct a drainage system and supply them with water and electric light, and promoted a Bill for the purpose. It was said the people did not want the Bill, but before the Committee five of the inhabitants were examined in favour of it and one against it. The Dublin Corporation were providing a drainage system, but nobody knew whether it would prove effective or not, and it was idle to talk of delay for five years. At the end of the five years the corporation might find that they had expended the money of the ratepayers without getting any real relief. It was decided that after five years the sewage of Rathmines and Pembroke should be treated in a certain way, so as not to send sewage into the mouth of the River Liffey. There was a special section of the Act enabling the Rathmines and Pembroke Board to agree with the Corporation of Dublin as to any other mode of treating the sewage which came from Rathmines and Pembroke.
  The Second Reading of this Bill had been carried by a majority of about sixty. Before the Select Committee all interested parties were heard by counsel, and witnesses were called and the inquiry lasted eight days. All matters of detail were threshed out, and the Committee arrived at certain conclusions. Was the House of Commons, upon a Motion of this kind, going to refuse to pass the Third Reading of this Bill and thus stultify the action of their own Committee? By so doing the House would be declaring that the Select Committee had failed to discharge its duty and had been unfaithful to its trust. This was a Bill to improve a small district which asked for it, and at whose request the Bill was mainly promoted. It would have been open to those who were now opposing the Bill to have placed their case before the Select Committee, but they did not do so, and why should these objections be brought forward now? The objections which had been raised did not at all justify the rejection of this measure. If the Bill was sent to the other House those objections might be dealt with there. Pembroke had called a meeting which was to be held for the purpose of approving what had been done by the Select Committee. The hon. Member
  330
  for South Dublin either did not know that or he did not state it to the House. Had the hon. Member any authority from the Urban District Council of Pembroke for the course he had taken? He might be able to support his case with a few dissatisfied individuals, for there would always be found a few cranks, and it was their views that the hon. Member was putting forward. The body that represented Pembroke and who knew all about its requirements had not instructed anyone to say a word against this measure, and a special meeting had been called for the purpose of passing a resolution approving of everything that had been done. With regard to Rathmines, they had their political convictions and they were Unionists, but they never allowed politics to interfere with their local affairs, and that was the reason why Rathmines was a well-managed place. The people of the districts concerned were anxious that this Bill should pass. The Corporation of Dublin and a few cranks were opposed to the measure, but beyond that there was no opposition to the Bill. If those who were opposing the measure had any case they could state their objections before the Committee of the House of Lords.
  MR. T. HARRINGTONsaid the hon. Member who had just sat down had neither been just to himself nor respectful to the House, because he had made no effort to obtain any knowledge of the subject upon which he had been speaking. There was not a single material statement made by the hon. Member that was not absolutely inaccurate. He was present at the inquiry and heard the evidence and had since read it over, and if the hon. Member for Londonderry would only read that evidence he would find that there was scarcely a page of the evidence which would not make him ashamed of the statement which he had just made. The hon. Member said that this district had applied to the district council for lighting, and had applied in vain. That was not so. He also said that they applied for a water supply a long time before they could get it. As a matter of fact the district had possessed a water supply for the last

  331
  thirty years, and it had been well lighted for a long period. With regard to the opposition of the Corporation of Dublin, he wished to point out that Dublin had spent over half a millon of money on its main drainage in order to keep the sewage out of the River Liffey, and their only anxiety was to see that this vast expenditure of money should not be thrown away by these two townships being allowed to run their sewage into the Liffey. The singular thing was that while protection was given to the Port and Docks Board no power or initiative whatever was given to the Corporation of Dublin in regard to this matter. The two urban districts of Rathmines and Pembroke had a joint main-drainage board, and they paid £200 a year to the Port and Docks Board for allowing their system of sewage to enter the river. This was simply paid as compensation for the additional dredging that might be necessary, and there was no question of sanitation or the health of the district taken into account at that time. There was a clause in the Bill which still left it in the power of the Port and Docks Board to make arrangements with the Main Drainage Board of Rathmines and Pembroke by which they could get an additional rent and thus be permitted for all time to allow this pollution of the River Liffey to continue. The Corporation of Dublin were the sanitary authority for the Liffey, and they desired to be able to put a stop to this pollution of the river.
  There were two proposals placed before the Committee. One was that they should drain into the Rathmines system, and the penalty was that they should be annexed to Rathmines. The other was that they should drain into the system of the Corporation of Dublin, and for £100 a year the corporation were willing to treat all their sewage. The Committee rejected that and accepted the proposal that involved annexation, against the consent of the majority of the people who were taken over. Before the Committee the clerk of the district council was examined, and he stated that circulars had been issued, and the result was that the replies he received showed a majority of five or six to one against annexation. He had never known a
  332
  Committee of the House give effect to its opinions in a more ineffective manner One of the clauses of the Bill introduced an absolutely new and vicious principle by putting upon a body of ratepayers a heavy charge with respect to which they had never been consulted. He complained that though the Corporation of Dublin, before the promotion of the Bill, had bound themselves to supply water to this district, which was to be added to Rathmines, at the same rate at which water was supplied in the city, the Bill had emanated from the Committee without a word of protection for the corporation as water sellers. This Bill gave power to charge 1s. 1d. for water. Now was it at all likely that the people who were getting water from the Dublin Corporation at 3d. would continue taking the Dublin supply when they would be obliged to pay four times as much even if they had no supply at all from the new authority? He thought proper compensation ought to have been made to the Corporation of Dublin for the loss of these privileges.
  MR. CHARLES ALLENspeaking as a member of the Committee, said the main proposal, and really the only one before the Committee, was that for the annexation of the Rathmines and Rathgar Urban District Council. This was opposed on general grounds by the county council, the South Dublin District Council, and the corporation, and by the Port and Harbour Board on drainage grounds. Personally, he thought it a very arguable point whether the added, district ought not to be a portion of the City of Dublin, but that point was not before the Committee. He believed, also that the majority of the people in the added district were not in favour of annexation. But on questions of local annexation Parliament had never admitted that the wishes of the people off the district proposed to be annexed should be absolutely final. The Committee were advised that the principle of outgrowth and community of interest had often been allowed to override the present wishes of inhabitants. That being so, the Committee felt themselves free to look to the future needs of the added district. They found that it

  333
  was rapidly changing to an urban character similar to that of Rathmines, that it had no drainage system, that its scavenging was bad, and they were not favourably impressed with the evidence they had of its local government, and they came to the conclusion that it should not be left as it was. They thought good government was certain if the district was added to Rathmines, whereas it was only a possibility if left alone. As to the drainage, much of the sewage went into a pipe belonging to the Rathmines district, and thence through the Rathmines sewer into the Liffey in an absolutely crude and untreated condition. The Committee, therefore, decided that the annexation should take place only on the condition that the sewage of Rathmines and the added district was properly treated, and consequently they had to go beyond the four corners of the Bill. They felt, however, that the good they were doing by preventing this crude sewage going into the Liffey warranted them in asking the House of Commons to support their action. If Pembroke felt itself aggrieved it had a perfect right to go before the House of Lords Committee. The Committee were unanimous in their conclusion; it was a common-sense decision, which he hoped the House would approve.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,)said that when the Bill came up for Second Reading he made no representations as to the facts of the case; he simply pointed out the contentions of the respective parties, submitted that the House of Commons was not the proper tribunal to decide the questions of difference, and asked that the Bill should be allowed to go before the constitutional body for dealing with such matters, viz., a Committee of this House. The Bill had been before that tribunal and an unanimous decision given. He failed to understand the contention of hon. Members, or why they should attempt to upset the decision of a properly qualified and impartial tribunal, arrived at after hearing evidence from all parties concerned, simply because that decision did not happen to be that which hon. Members desired. No attempt had been made to impeach the
  334
  honesty, capacity, or fairness of the Committee. Did hon. Members suggest that the corporation had any power to prevent Rathmines from discharging crude sewage into the Liffey, or that they would have it under their main drainage scheme?
  MR. T. HARRINGTONsaid the whole of their contention was that there was no power to prevent it, and that the corporation, after spending half a million of money on their main drainage, would still be without that power.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid the price the Rathmines township had to pay for the addition of this district was that within five years they must adopt a scheme under which they would no longer discharge their crude sewage into the Liffey.
  MR. T. HARRINGTON: But it is not mandatory.
  MR. ATKINSONsaid that if the clauses of the Bill were inadequate the proper course of the opponents of the Bill was to raise the issue before the tribunal which for the first time he had heard hon. Members refer to with such absolute confidence—the House of Lords. The principle which guided this House in regard to private Bills on which a right of appeal to the House of Lords had been reserved was not to allow the decision of the Committee to be over-ruled unless it could be alleged that the Committee had acted improperly and in bad faith, or that new matter had arisen. No such allegation had been made in this case, and the only interest he had, as representing the Government, was to see that the general rule and practice of Parliament was followed with regard to the Bill before the House.
  MR. NANNETTIsaid he had heard with astonishment that the Attorney-General was speaking on behalf of the Government in asking the House to pass the Third Reading of this Bill. What they, as representing the City of Dublin, protested against was the omission of the

  335
  Committee to insert a mandatory clause protecting the rights of the corporation as regarded water and main drainage. The corporation were carrying out works called for by the Government themselves, involving an expenditure of half a million of money, and yet it would remain possible under this Bill for the Liffey to be made the receptacle of all the sewage that could be turned into it from Rathmines and the new district.
  They simply asked for common justice which required the insertion of a mandatory clause under which Rathmines should be compelled so to treat their sewage that it would not cause injury either to the people or to the river.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 224; Noes, 109. (Division List No. 215.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th)

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lawson John Grant(Yorks. N. R

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Allen, Charles P.

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lee, ArthurH. (Hants, Fareham

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Arrol, Sir William

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Edwards, Frank

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Elilank, Master of

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Ellice. CaptEC(S. Andrw'sB'ghs

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S

  Bain, Colonel James Robert.

  Emmott, Alfred

  Lowe, Francis William

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Fellowes, RtHn. Ailwyn Edward

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Balcarres, Lord

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ss B'ghs

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Balfour. RtHn Gerald W. (Leeds

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Forster, Henry William

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Galloway, William Johnson

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh, W

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Garfit, William

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Bigwood, James

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Bill, Charles

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Black, Alexander William

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gordon, Hn. J E. (Elgin & Nairn)

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Gordon, Maj Evans(T'rH'mlets

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Bond, Edward

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Maxwell. RtHnSir H. E. (Wigt'n

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

  Maxwell, W. J. H(Dumfriesshire

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Middlemore, JohnThrogmorton

  Bull, William James

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Milvain, Thomas

  Buxton, Sydney Chas. (Poplar

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

  Campbell, J. H. M. (DublinUniv.

  Hamilton, Marq of(L'nd'nderry

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hardy Laurenee(Kent, Ashford

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Chamberlain. RtHn. J. A(Worc.

  Heath, Sir James(Staffords. NW

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Helder, Augustus

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Chapman, Edward

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Mount, William Arthur

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield. Brightside

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Howard John(Kent Faversham

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Partington, Oswald

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hunt, Rowland

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Issacs, Rufus Daniel

  Percy, Earl

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Perks, Robert William

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Crombie, John William

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Keswick, William

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Purvis, Robert

  Denny, Colonel

  Laurie, Lieut-General

  Rankin, Sir James

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Smith HC. (North'mb. Tyneside

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Welby Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Renwick, George

  Spear, John Ward

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Whiteley, H(Ashton und. Lyne

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Stock, James Henry

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Wodehouse. Rt. Hn. E. R(Bath)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Runciman, Walter

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Russell, T. W.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Tuff, Charles

  Younger, William

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Ure, Alexander

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Valentia, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. John Gordon and Mr. Sloan

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Vincent. Col. Sir C. EH(Sheffield

  Slack, John Bamford

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Hammond, John

  O'Dowd, John

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Kelly. James (Roscommon, N

  Asquith. Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Malley, William

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Benn, John Williams

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Boland, John

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Brigg, John

  Jores, Leif (Appleby)

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Reddy, M.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Joyce, Michael

  Redmond, ohn E. (Waterford

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N.

  Richards, Thomas

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Kilbride, Deais

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Burns, John

  Langley, Batty

  Roche, John

  Burt, Thomas

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

  Caldwell, James

  Levy, Maurice,

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sheehy, David

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Lough, Thomas

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Lundon, W.

  Spencer Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sullivan, Donal

  Crean, Eugene

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Crae, George

  Thomas David Alfrea(Merthyr)

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Kean, John

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Tomkinson, James

  Delany. William

  M'Killop, W. (Slio, North)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay(Galway)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Murplvy, John

  Weir, James Galloway

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Nolan. Col. John P. (Galway. N.)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wood, J mes

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Young, Samuel

  Findlay, Alexander(Lanark, NE

  O'Connor. James (Wicklow, W.)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Mooney and Mr. Field.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  BANGOR (COUNTY DOWN) WATER AND IMPROVEMNT BILL [LORDS] (By ORDER).
  Read a second time, and committed.
  MR WOODmoved—That it be an Instruction to the Com
  338
  mittee to insert a clause for the protection of James M. Thomson or other the owner for the time being of the property known as Martello, providing that nothing in the Act shall empower the council to interfere with any right of access from the said property to the seashore, and further providing that nothing in the Act shall authorise the

  339
  council to erect any buildings on the slopes within a distance of fifty yards from any part of the said property, and that the said portion of the slopes shall not be used for any purposes other than a permanent garden or esplanade." Mr. Thomson appeared before the Committee, but unfortunately he was not represented by counsel. He did not know of any reasonable objection to the adoption of this instruction, which could do the promoters of the Bill no harm, and there were already in the Bill special provisions in regard to other property.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Speak up; we cannot hear a word you are saying.
  MR. WOODsaid that when Mr. Thomson built his property he had the assurance of the ground landlord that the slopes would be left open and that no buildings would be erected upon them, and in view of that promise Mr. Thomson erected his buildings. Now it was proposed under this Bill to abolish all those safeguards, and the council of Bangor would be permitted by this Bill to erect any building upon these slopes to the prejudice of Mr. Thomson's property. He begged to move the instruction standing in his name.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to insert a clause for the protection of James M. Thomson or other the owner for the time being of the property known as Martello, providing that nothing in the Act shall empower the council to interfere with any right of access from the said property to the seashore, and further providing that nothing in the Act shall authorise the council to erect any buildings on the slopes within a distance of fifty yards from any part of the said property, and that the said portion of the slopes shall not be used for any purposes other than a permanent garden or esplanade."—(Mr, Wood.)
  MR. T. L. CORBETTthought it would have been better if upon one of the rare appearances of the hon. Member for East Down he had devoted his time and ability to a more worthy cause than opposing a Bill which had
  340
  been unanimously approved of by the Bangor District Urban Council.
  MR. WOODsaid it had not been approved of by a majority of the people of Bangor.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid it had been approved of by the urban council after an election which had taken place upon this very issue.
  MR. WOOD: It is not so.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid Bangor happened to be in his own constituency, and he happened to know a little more about it than the hon. Member. He repeated, without fear of contradiction, except from the hon. Member opposite, that this Bill was unanimously approved of by the Urban District Council of Bangor after an election which took place upon the very issues involved in this Bill. This was an omnibus Bill dealing with the water and gas supply, road widening, and the provision of a recreation ground in the prosperous and growing town of Bangor. It seemed to him absolutely absurd that the House should be asked to discuss one small item like this instruction, and he should be merely wasting the time of the House if he attempted to deal with it. This particular case had already been considered by a Committee of the House of Lords, and had the hon. Member wished he could have brought it before the Committee of the House of Commons by petition. He was sure that the House would agree with him in saying that for them to discuss a minute detail of this kind would be a pure waste of time.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that at the risk of being charged with wasting the time of the House he would venture to say a few words, upon this point. He hoped it would be noted that they had allowed the Bill to pass its Second Reading without a division. The real question was that a constituent of the hon. Member for East Down thought that part of this Bill would injure him, and as he was not a wealthy man he had not been able to have his case presented by counsel. He appeared before the Committee of the House of Lords, and they were so impressed by his case that they put

  341
  in a clause to protect his interests, but his contention was that this clause did not protect his interests, and the hon. Member opposite wished that the case which was admitted by the Lords should go to the Committee of the House of Commons with the direction that this man's interests should be seen to. Why should the hon. Member for North Down object to that? This man's property might be ruined by something which this urban council might do. Was it to be left to him now to protect the rights of the landlords? The House of Lords had admitted the justice of this man's claim, and he desired to come before the Committee of the House of Commons. Consequently the hon. Member for East Down thought an instruction
  should be passed to this effect. Although this was only the case of an individual he could assure the hon. Member for North Down that great constitutional questions had been fought over the rights of a single individual.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,)expressed the view that the matter had better be left entirely to the Committee which dealt with the Bill.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 125; Noes, 223. (Division List No. 216.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Dowd, John

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hammond, John

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N

  Boland, John

  Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil

  O'Malley, William

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Mara, James

  Brigg, John

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Partington, Oswald

  Burns, John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Buxton, NE(York, NR, Whitby)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Caldwell, James

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Reddy, M.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Richards, Thomas

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Joyce, Micheal

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

  Roche, John

  Crean, Eugene

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rose, Charles Day

  Cramer, William Randal

  Langley, Batty

  Seely, Maj. J. EB. (Isle of Wight

  Cullinan, J.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Sheehy, David

  Delany, William

  Levy, Maurice

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Slack, John Bamford

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Lough, Thomas

  Sullivan, Donal

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Lundon, W.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Tennant, Harold John

  Doogan, P. C.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  M'Kean, John

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Ure, Alexander

  Edwards, Frank

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Ellice, CaptEC(S. Andrw's Bghs

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Evans. Sir Francis H (Maidstone

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Murphy, John

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Field, William

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Findlay, Alexander(Lanark, NE

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, John (Durham. Mid.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Young, Samuel

  Foster, Sir Michael(Lond. Univ.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Wood and Mr. T. W. Russell

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Morgan, DavidJ. (Walthamstow

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Godson. Sir Augustus Frederick

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Allen, Charles P.

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Arnold-Forster, RtHn. HughO.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Arrol, Sir William

  Green, WalfordD. (Wednesbury

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Hamilton, RtHnLordG. (Midd'x

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'nderry

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wollesley

  Balcarres, Lord

  Harwood, George

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Percy, Earl

  Balfour, RtHnGeraldW. (Leeds

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Perks, Robert William

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Heath, Sir James(Staffords. NW

  Philipps, Jolm Wynford

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Helder, Augustus

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Benn, John Williams

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Purvis, Robert

  Bigwood, James

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Rankin, Sir James

  Bill, Charles

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne

  Bingham, Lord

  Howard, John(Kent, Faversham

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Black, Alexander William

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hunt, Rowland

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Bond, Edward

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir JohnH.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Keswick, William

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Bull, William James

  Lamont, Norman

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Buxton, Sydney Charles(Poplar

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Campbell, J. H. M. (DublinUniv.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Runciman, Walter

  Carson, Rt Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Lawson, Hn. HL. W. (Mile End)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Lawson, John Grant(Yorks. N. R

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Cawley, Frederick

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Chamberlain, RtHn. J. A. (Worc.

  Lee, ArthurH. (Hants, Fareham

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Chapman, Edward

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Long. Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Long. Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S)

  Smith, H. C(North'mb. Tyneside

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Lowe, Francis William

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Crombie, John William

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Spear, John Ward

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Spencer, Rt, Hn. C. R. (Northants

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

  Davenport, William Bromley

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Denny, Colonel

  M'Crae, George

  Stock, James Henry

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  M'lver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh, W

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Malcolm, Ian

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir WilliamHart

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Tomkinson, James

  Emmott, Alfred

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Fellowes RtHn. Ailwyn Edward

  Maxwell, RtHnSir H. E. (Wigt'n

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

  Tuff, Charles

  Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Turnour, Viscount

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Forster, Henry William

  Milvain, Thomas

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Welby Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton

  344

  345

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

  Younger, William

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Thomas Corbett and Mr. Sloan

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  ALIENS BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. GRANT LAWSON (Yorkshire, N. R. Thirsk) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1.
  MR. TREVELYAN MR. TREVELYAN (Yorkshire, W. R. Elland) moved an Amendment to provide that an immigrant should not be prevented from landing in the United Kingdom at ports where there was no immigration board under the Act. The object of this was to alter the proposals of the Bill with regard to those ports where the Home Office did not appoint an immigration board. There would be under the Bill two classes of ports. One would have immigrant officers, and aliens would be able to come in subject to examination by those officers. There would be other ports where no aliens could come in at all. The question he now raised was whether the ports where there were no officers were to be free or closed ports. His objection to the proposals in the Bill was that those ports where there were no immigrant officers would be penalised as compared with their competitors. The Home Secretary had stated that he could not tell exactly just yet what ports would have immigration officers, but he had indicated that at any rate the following were likely to be included in the list: London, Southampton, Newhaven, Hull, Grimbsy, Leith, the Tyne ports, and Liverpool. The result of appointing immigration officers at these ports would be that at the neighbouring ports no alien would be able to come in for the purpose of landing in this country, or for the purpose of transmigration. Newhaven would be able to carry on a trade with transmigrants, but Folkestone and Dover would not be permitted to do so. Hull and Grimsby would be able to carry on that trade, but Goole would not be able to do so. Leith would be
  346
  able to receive immigrants, while Grangemouth would not be able to do so. They had been told by the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs that the shipping, trade at Grangemouth did carry on a transmigration traffic at present. Why not let these be free ports, and, if any large number of aliens came in through them, it would be perfectly open to the Home Secretary in a month or two to place any port on the list and to appoint immigration officers. It would be impossible for any transmigration traffic to arise in the ports not scheduled in the Bill, even though they should become the natural ports for that traffic. The Committee were told by the hon. Member for Newcastle that in a great many cases the ships which brought aliens to this country were owned by foreigners. Supposing that at one of the ports not scheduled by the Home Secretary a British shipowner desired to start this trade, they were going to make it impossible for him to do so. The truth was that the promoters of this Bill cared nothing for shipping. They professed, through the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, to bring in the Bill for the purpose of protecting the working classes—
  Sir HOWARD VINCENT: We are all interested in shipping.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid there were no sailors in Birmingham or Sheffield. They had heard from the Attorney-General that no transmigrants were to immigration officers. That was a very unwise regulation, and they would do far better to leave all ports open, except those where officers were appointed.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 6, to leave out the word, 'landed,' and insert the words 'prevented from lan ling'—(Mr. Trevelyan)—instead thereof."
  Question proposed, "That the word landed stand part of the clause."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKEBS-DOUGLAS,)said he did not entirely disagree with the argument of the hon. Member. He thought the Bill now provided very largely for what the hon. Member desired. If a transmigrant trade tended to any port, the Government would be ready to enable that port to receive the trade. What the hon. Member desired was that all ports should be open, and that we should have machinery in every port for dealing with immigrants. They could not have that because of the enormous expense which would be incurred in setting up machinery at every port. It would be far better to publish in the Gazette, or through an ordinary notice, at what ports they intended in the first instance to set up machinery, and then, as it was found necessary afterwards to increase the number of ports, to set up machinery wherever they found a tendency to a trans-migrant trade. There was no hardship in the point suggested, for the Bill was intended to regulate wholesale immigration. They could not stop the individual alien.
  MR. EMMOTT. Where an alien is refused at a scheduled port, could he not come in as one of a small number at an unscheduled port?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid that they were dealing with the wholesale immigration trade in the Bill.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Supposing an alien is rejected at one of the ports, could not the shipping company take him along the coast and get him entered through another port?
  MAJOR SEELYsaid it was being admitted that it was impossible to keep out the alien, and he maintained that the whole of the immigration of the last ten years could be overtaken in one month by the process of "infiltration" recognised by the Bill. He would appeal to the Committee as reasonable men whether, apart from any question of Party, it had not been proved
  348
  that the only thing they could do was, under Clause 3, to expel an alien if he committed "any felony, or misdemeanour, or other offence for which the Court has power to impose imprisonment without the option of a fine." The Bill was directed against bringing in aliens in bulk, and that meant twenty or more at a time. Therefore, aliens could be imported to the number of nineteen at a time. He knew that the Bill was introduced in good faith by the right hon. Gentleman, but if the importation of aliens could still go on by "infiltration" the Bill was nothing less than a farce. The only way of dealing with the alien problem was to follow the advice of the responsible authorities, and expel aliens who were convicted of offences. On the right hon. Gentleman's own showing there would be "infiltration" through other than the scheduled ports, and that alien immigrants could come in nineteen at a time. He, therefore, asked him whether it would not be possible to pass Clause 3 and drop the rest of the Bill.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBEET FINLAY,)said he thought that the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not appear to have read the Bill, or he could not have made so many mistakes in his speech. The Home Secretary had said at least a dozen times that there was to be no schedule of ports; and, in the second place, the power as to the number of immigrants admitted was vested in the Home Secretary, who could vary the number if he found it desirable. The owners of the lines of vessels which brought such passengers would find it essential in their own interests to establish a most effective scrutiny at the port of embarkation, and the whole thing would work without any of the difficulty which had been conjured up by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid that under this Bill the bulk traffic in immigrants would be effectually put a stop to, but that was the part of the trade with which they did not want to meddle. They did not want to touch the through traffic, yet now the Attorney-General said that through-transit trade would be effectively checked.
  Sir ROBERT FINLAYsaid that hon. Gentlemen ought to know that the transmigrant trade was not subject to the conditions of the Bill.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid what he ventured to propose was that the vast mass of the trade consisted of transmigrant aliens, and that the Bill really provided for steps being taken to harass the transmigrant trade, whereas, in the individual trade, lunatics, and other undesirables, were people who did not come here in bulk. These were the people whom it was evidently not now the intention of the Government to keep out of the country, although the Prime Minister had told them recently that that was the sole object of the Government. He asked the hon. Gentlemen who represented the East End of London to give the Committer their views on the question. Were they satisfied that criminals, lunatics, and other undesirables were not going to be kept out of the country? Whatever the intentions of the authors of the Bill might be, the machinery was altogether so defective as to make this clause value
  MR. PEELsaid that the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight had declared that nothing could be easier than for an immigrant ship to pass the scheduled ports and carry the immigrants round to a free port. His contention was that that would be an offence under the Act. It was unlikely that any shipowner would run the risk of a fine of £100, which was provided by the Bill, in order to carry to a free port an immigrant who was not allowed to land at a scheduled port. He had already said in the course of the discussion that the number of twenty was far too high; but it was perfectly obvious that if it appeared that the law was being evaded and that aliens were being brought in at free ports nothing would be easier than for the Home Secretary to limit the number to less than twenty, and to set up a new schedule of ports. In both cases the machinery of the Bill provided a remedy.
  MR. J. A. PEASE (Essex,)said that the object at which they all aimed in supporting a Bill
  350
  of this character was to keep out the un desirable alien, but that object would not be attained unless the clause were amended. For example, if these immigrants were not allowed to land in bulk at scheduled ports on the Tyne, they could come in at ports on the Tees, a few miles down the coast, in small groups of three or four, up to nineteen; and from these Tees ports they could readily reach the large industrial towns.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid that the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for Elland was roughly whether they should express themselves in regard to this Bill affirmately or negatively—whether aliens should not be allowed to land except at scheduled ports, or whether they should be allowed to land at any other ports. The Amendment raised the clear issue whether there should be ports in this country which would be known as free ports. The hon. Gentleman opposite did very little to clear up the difficulty under which the Committee was labouring. By the admission of the Home Secretary the following case might occur: a ship with 300 immigrants on board arrived at a scheduled port, 285 passed the various tests, and were allowed to land and go forward as transmigrants, while the fifteen who were rejected simply went on to another port in another ship in possession of the same line of steamers, and got in there. He submitted to the Home Secretary that the machinery he was setting up would result in the residuum of immigrants rejected at any one of he specified ports going on to other ports not scheduled, and landing there with perfect impunity. This was really only the first of two Bills that were required. An Aliens Filtration Bill would have to follow in order to fill up the gaps with which this Bill did not deal. He had always heard that it was a maxim of the legal profession which the right hon. Gentleman opposite adorned that when you had no case you should abuse the other attorney. It was on that ground, he supposed, that the Attorney-General had accused the hon, and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight of not having read the Bill. They were told that if the shipping companies were squeezed enough they would put all sorts of illegal, or at

  351
  any rate irregular, pressure on aliens at the port of embarkation. They were able to tie up the Government of the country to prescribe the conditions under which these people were to come here; but it was not for the House of Commons to say that any private companies would be entitled to encourage the practices he had referred to.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid it seemed to him perfectly obvious that any man from Germany, or Roumania, or elsewhere who was anxious to come to England, and who was rejected at one of the specified ports, would take the first available opportunity of going to another, say in a cattle boat, to a port where there was no immigration officer. If that could be done, it seemed to him that the whole scheme of the Bill was useless. The Home Secretary said that the Bill would not interfere with the development of the transmigrant trade, but now could that argument be advanced by a responsible Minister when shipowners were told that they must not land passengers except at eight specified ports? Take the case of Middlesborough. That port might be found suitable for the transmigration trade, but it would be impossible to foster that trade there because the Home Secretary had not set up machinery for it.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid that if, as was curiously contended by hon. Gentlemen opposite, the meshes of the Bill were too wide, it would be easy under the machinery created by the Bill to make the meshes narrow enough to catch the individual. Under the regulations of the Bill it was perfectly possible to specify the number of passengers which went to make it an immigrant ship. He welcomed the fact that the Government had not thought to go too strongly in their treatment of this subject. He thought it was far better that they should take the main lines of immigration and deal with them by adequate machinery. As one who, in the main, supported the Bill, he welcomed its elasticity and the desire of the Government to go gradually. Ai to the question of the transmigrant trade, it was perfectly true that that trade
  352
  was an object of great solicitude to ship-owners; but the Government had put down an Amendment on the Paper which practically gave the Home Secretary power to take the transmigrant trade out of the scope of the Bill. All holders of through tickets would be exempted by that Amendment.
  MR. RUNCIMANasked if his hon. friend suggested that there were no transmigrant immigrants who did not hold through tickets.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid that an immigrant who spent a few weeks in this country and then rebooked to the United States was certainly a transmigrant immigrant; but, so far as the shipping companies were concerned, they were content to have the through booking traffic protected as was proposed by his right hon. friend's Amendment. As regarded those who were not through booked, he admitted that there were difficulties under the Bill, and that it was quite possible that they might be injured, but that was a matter for further consideration.
  MR. GUESTsaid that surely the result of the debate had been to show that the machinery devised in the Bill made it impossible to obtain the ends desired. The Bill would stop, or at any rate injure, the perfectly legitimate trade which it ought to be the object of the House to promote.
  And, it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCILS ASSOCIATION BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.
  Adjourned at five minutes alter Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—Dublin United Tramways.
Also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13).
And also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for a Bill by the South Barracas (Buenos Ayres) Gas and Coke Company ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to introduce the Bill.
Read, and agreed to.
South Barracas (Buenos Ayres) Gas and Coke Company Bill[H. L.]. Presented; read la; and referred to the Examiners.
Corbett Estate Bill [H. L.]. Reported, with Amendments.
Dublin United Tramways Bill. Read 2a, and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Midland Railway Bill, Read 2a committed.
North-Eastern Railway Bill. Read 2a, and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Worcestershire County Council, (Bridges) Bill; Bootle Corporation Bill;
226
Caledonian Railway Bill. Read 2a, and committed.
Swansea Corporation Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Millport Piers and Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Bill. Brought from the Commons.
Darien Gold Mining Company Bill [H. L.]; Leven's Patent Bill [H. L.]; Gamble's Divorce Bill [H. L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Rhymney Railway Bill [H. L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Morley Corporation Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill. Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill. Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill. Read 3a (according to order); an Amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill. Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill [H. L.]. Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 15) Bill. House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
Millport Piers and Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Bill. Read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a (The Marquess of Linlithgow), and reported from the Committee. (No. 110.)

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TREATY SERIES, No 18 (1905).
  Treaty between Great Britain and Sweden and Norway for the Marriage of Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret of Great Britain and Ireland with His Royal Highness Prince Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden and Norway; signed at Stockholm, 20th May, 1905.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  CRIMINAL CASES (RESERVATION OF POINTS OF LAW) BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee without further Amendment. The Report of the Amendments, made in Committee of the Whole House, to be received on Thursday next.
  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
  The evidence taken before the Select Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies to be delivered out except to members of the Committee, and such other persons as the Committee shall think fit, until further order. (No. 109.)
  FINANCE BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered on Thursday next in order to its being suspended for that day's sitting.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Five o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.